Has Thomism stood the test of time?

[Image_of_God]

Some people believe it has and others do not, so I was wondering what everyone thought regarding this question.

 

[Katholish]

A resounding YES from me. I believe Thomism to be the only rational answer to Modern and Recent Philosophy.

 

[MindOverMatter]

The only arguement that can be given against Thomism, is the growing belief that objective universal logic does not exist. This is based on quantum physics. In other words the arguement is given that since 1 thing can be in two places at once at the same time or can move by itself, that therefore potentiality can come from absolutely nothing. I would argue that even if this were possible (which i do not believe since there is no meaning in saying that a thing can exist and not exist at the same time) its still more reasonable to believe that things exist in relation to other things, regardless of whether or not a thing is indeterminate. However, so far as logic is concerned, Thomistic proofs for the existence of God are air tight. Its no wonder therefore that people seek to undermine the universality of logic.

 

[Matthias123]

The only arguement that can be given against Thomism, is the growing belief that objective universal logic does not exist. This is based on quantum physics. In other words the arguement is given that since 1 thing can be in two places at once at the same time or can move by itself, that therefore potentiality can come from absolutely nothing. I would argue that even if this were possible (which i do not believe since there is no meaning in saying that a thing can exist and not exist at the same time) its still more reasonable to believe that things exist in relation to other things, regardless of whether or not a thing is indeterminate. However, so far as logic is concerned, Thomistic proofs for the existence of God are air tight. Its no wonder therefore that people seek to undermine the universality of logic.

since 1 thing can be in two places at once at the same time or can move by itself, that therefore potentiality can come from absolutely nothing.

I would debate those findings as an improper interpretation of quantum mechanics. If universal logic doesn’t exist, then how the heck can you even know that your math is correcty describing the phenomenom? If causality breaks, then someone is going to have to explain why I don’t have a talking giraffe appearing in my room. The Copenhagen interpretation is going to fail. Perhaps the solution is M-Theory.

 

[Image_of_God]

Thank you all for replying. I have one question for MindOverMatter. If Thomistic proofs of God are air tight, why then doesn’t everyone believe in His existence.

 

[MindOverMatter]

Thank you all for replying. I have one question for MindOverMatter. If Thomistic proofs of God are air tight, why then doesn’t everyone believe in His existence.

When i was an atheist i was concerned with maximizing my finite existence in respect of pleasure and social significance. Thus at the time i had not developed the necessary skills to really understand, and nor did i want to understand. I came to understand Aquinas because i desperately wanted to understand it due to my wanting to escape nihilism. I believed in God however by principle of faith before i knew of Thomism. There are in fact cleverly constructive but ultimately deceptive arguments which do make it seem as if Thomism is false, and therefore people assume the worst and give up, because they have no faith in Thomas. But those who persevere see through the errors and find Aquinas to be intellectually significant and relevant to all times.

Perhaps this is not true in all cases, but the funny thing with the Thomistic proofs is that they only reveal themselves to those who dedicate there whole mind to understanding them. Thomas himself prayed and cried tears for understanding. Of coarse, this in itself is not a proof of the validity of his proofs. Also people keep using language that is very difficult for people to grasp and so the people that really need to know never do. I think that more books need to be written that brings Thomism up to date in respect of modern advances in the other sciences, and uses language that the lay person can get to grips with in respect of his social setting. Some Thomists will tell you that not all people will be able to grasp the truth of it, because they cannot make the necessary abstractions and understand why those abstractions represent being. Its like people who don’t understand why you can’t have an infinite regress of proceeding numbers or events. Kind of like i will probably never grasp why some scientific equations work. Kind of like perhaps there will never be a complete understanding of everything. Some times its not the fault of the person trying to understand but rather there is a fault in the communication or the capacity for understanding. But sometimes is just plain old fashion denial that leads people to be ignorant of truth.

Peter kreeft once said a telling thing. He said to some effect that God has revealed enough so that those who want to find him will find him, and those that don’t want to will not.

I think that this is true to some degree. But it must be stressed that not all who find God in the end will find God through the five ways of Thomas Aquinas; and few us do.

Does that some what answer your Question young jedi?

 

[Image_of_God]

When i was an atheist i was concerned with maximizing my finite existence in respect of pleasure and social significance. Thus at the time i had not developed the necessary skills to really understand, and nor did i want to understand. I came to understand Aquinas because i desperately wanted to understand it due to my wanting to escape nihilism. I believed in God however by principle of faith before i knew of Thomism. There are in fact cleverly constructive but ultimately deceptive arguments which do make it seem as if Thomism is false, and therefore people assume the worst and give up, because they have no faith in Thomas. But those who persevere see through the errors and find Aquinas to be intellectually significant and relevant to all times.

Perhaps this is not true in all cases, but the funny thing with the Thomistic proofs is that they only reveal themselves to those who dedicate there whole mind to understanding them. Thomas himself prayed and cried tears for understanding. Of coarse, this in itself is not a proof of the validity of his proofs. Also people keep using language that is very difficult for people to grasp and so the people that really need to know never do. I think that more books need to be written that brings Thomism up to date in respect of modern advances in the other sciences, and uses language that the lay person can get to grips with in respect of his social setting. Some Thomists will tell you that not all people will be able to grasp the truth of it, because they cannot make the necessary abstractions and understand why those abstractions represent being. Its like people who don’t understand why you can’t have an infinite regress of proceeding numbers or events. Kind of like i will probably never grasp why some scientific equations work. Kind of like perhaps there will never be a complete understanding of everything. Some times its not the fault of the person trying to understand but rather there is a fault in the communication or the capacity for understanding. But sometimes is just plain old fashion denial that leads people to be ignorant of truth.

Peter kreeft once said a telling thing. He said to some effect that God has revealed enough so that those who want to find him will find him, and those that don’t want to will not.

I think that this is true to some degree. But it must be stressed that not all who find God in the end will find God through the five ways of Thomas Aquinas; and few us do.

Does that some what answer your Question young jedi?

Yes! Most definitely. Thank you very much. It’s just that I have another, more general question. Sometimes I worry that I might be misleading people due to my speculations on this Philosophy Forum (of course accidentally). That is my main concern. Do you ever feel that way?

 

[geometer]

What in the world is universal logic? And what would objective universal logic be?

Do you mean the group of logics used in physics?

 

[geometer]

Leibnitz was an excellent logican who believed that there would be found, what he called a “universal characteristic” which could be used to resolve all problems. It would be a calculus and would employ symbols which are ‘something of what they symbolize’ and would appear somewhat like Chineese symbols…

 

[Just_Lurking]

Leibnitz was an excellent logican who believed that there would be found, what he called a “universal characteristic” which could be used to resolve all problems. It would be a calculus and would employ symbols which are ‘something of what they symbolize’ and would appear somewhat like Chineese symbols…

The present day Calculemus Project (see here) is inspired by Leibnitz’s vision.

 

[Just_Lurking]

I would debate those findings as an improper interpretation of quantum mechanics. If universal logic doesn’t exist, then how the heck can you even know that your math is correcty describing the phenomenom? If causality breaks, then someone is going to have to explain why I don’t have a talking giraffe appearing in my room. The Copenhagen interpretation is going to fail. Perhaps the solution is M-Theory.

M-Theory is a theory within the context of quantum mechanics (actually, quantum field theory), not a replacement for quantum mechanics, thus it won’t solve any quantum interpretation problems.

Consider the following statements regarding one test of the double slit experiment:

• A = The photon went through either slit 1 or slit 2.
• B = The photon went through slit 1.
• C = The photon went through slit 2.

Statement A is true. According to the classical logic that is elevated by metaphysics to the level of eternal truth, this means that either statement B must be true or that statement C must be true. However, in quantum mechanics, neither B nor C has a truth-value of “true”.