Reason Applied to Eastern Orthodoxy and Catholicism

[TOmNossor]

I mentioned in another thread presumably started by a philosophically minded fellow, that it is the philosophical underpinnings of Catholicism that I consider to be problematic to a disqualifying extent. I will mention at least one of these later in this post. If we are to use the minds God gave us to determine which church He heads, it would seem to me that we cannot reject reasoned conclusions. I fully support those who pray to know God’s will and where to find God’s church. In fact, I think the Bible has more “ask God” than “let’s reason together.” But it is the strength of the Catholic view of history (as compared to the Protestant view of history) that has enabled me to view Protestants as Christians who generally are not “deep in history.”

The philosophical problems present when dialect reasoning is applied to the various council decisions however are insurmountable IMO. If dialectic reasoning is to be employed as a tool, and I believe it was at basically every council, then I believe Catholic theology is irreformably contradictive. Aquinas as brilliant as he was includes contradictory thoughts that he does not solve IMO. This means whatever merits are present within Catholicism it is fatally flawed as a religion/theology and cannot be true.

About 6 months ago as I was studying Easter Orthodox thought I began to see an increasing volume of EOs specifically and boldly rejection dialectic reasoning in favor of anti-dialectic reasoning paradox. I personally identified with the problems they saw in either/or thinking because the developed Catholic positions were mutually contradictory in both of our opinions. I have two problems with the EO position:

• While I am certain that I am not sufficiently intelligent to define God, I do not believe we should accept the conclusion “A and not-A” just because the subject is God. Thus, I think dialectic reasoning has a place in weighing the various theological claims of opposing religious views.
• I believe that EOs as a product of accepting the first 7 councils, are married to dialectic reasoning anyway.

My hopes for this thread are as follows.

Here are 4 positions:

• Dialectic reasoning is important and dialectic reasoning is integral to those who accept the first 7 councils.
• Dialectic reasoning is not to be applied to God and those who accept the first 7 councils can do so without embracing dialectic reasoning.
• Dialectic reasoning produces hopeless contradictions for those who embrace it within historical Christianity.
• Dialectic reasoning does not produce hopeless contradictions for those who embrace it within historical Christianity.

I hope to defend position 1 and 3, and welcome any heretics to do the same.
I would expect that some Catholics will defend position 1 and 4.
I would expect that some Easter Orthodox Christians will defend position 2 and 3.

Now, I could in fact be in error as to the EO position. I could of course even be in error as to the Catholic position. So that may be the path walked and I will listen. I hope I am not wrong.

I desire to frame the discussion as above because I would hope that the above discussion will illuminate some of the problems I see with being a Catholic (and being an EO) without me being the only one arguing for 1 and 3 as a hopelessly confused heretic.

These are probably wild hopes, but we will see.

---

One of the more simple problems to lay out is as follows.

• God possesses aseity (exists a se). He is impassible and immutable so unaffected/unchanged by that which is external to Him.
• Humans have free will and choose to act.
  How does God know what humans do if he is not affected by humans in any way and humans are free?

If I remember correctly Aquinas “solved” this in two ways. At one point he claimed that God ultimately CAUSES all human action. Of course this allows God to know what humans do only by denying #2.
At another place Aquinas claims that God can “see” human choices with a “divine sight.”
Of course this allows God to know what humans do only by denying #1.

I believe dialectic reasoning produces volumes of issues somewhat more complex to lay out than the above, but still unsolvable.

Charity, TOm

 

[sokoticasiva]

With all due respect, I think you are trapped by false dillemas.

You say “Dialect reasoning” is a tool. Let us clarify what is the subject matter of that reasoning?

If the subject matter is God, I’d (on behalf of Orthodox)flatly reject that such a tool is apt.

If the subject matter is what’s been revealed to us about God, than it is apt.

TOmNossor:

God possesses aseity (exists a se).

Why “possesses”? Didn’t you make a presumption about what He is, not about what He does have?

He is impassible and immutable

He is omnipotent, good and incomprehensible.

so unaffected/unchanged by that which is external to Him.

Huh? Define “unaffected”.

How does God know what humans do if he is not affected by humans in any way and humans are free?

Whom is able to answer “how” God knows something? Particularly limited by your presumptions - impassible and immutable - which are notions of human origin and capabilities, and applicable to incoprehensible only within the limits of predefined logical system.

See St. Maximos’ the Confessor stance about the knowledge on God monachos.net/library/Maximos_the_Confessor%2C_On_Knowledge

1. The meaning of holy writings reveals itself gradually to the more discerning mind in loftier senses when it has put off the complex whole of the words formed in it bodily, as in the sound of a gentle breeze. Through a supreme abandonment of natural activities, such a mind has been able to perceive sense only in a simplicity which reveals the Word, the way that the great Elijah was granted the vision in the cave at Horeb (cp. 1 Ki 19). For Horeb means ‘newness,’ which is the virtuous condition in the new spirit of grace. The cave is the hiddenness of spiritual wisdom in which one who enters will mystically experience the knowledge which goes beyond the senses and in which God is found. therefore, anyone who truly seeks God as did the great Elijah will come upon Him not only on Horeb, that is, as an ascetic in the practice of the virtues, but also in the cave of Horeb, that is, as a contemplative in the hidden place of wisdom which can exist only in the habit of the virtues.

1. The divine Apostle Paul said that he knew in part the knowledge of the Word (cp. 1 Cor 13.9). But the great Evangelist John said that he saw His glory: ‘We have seen His glory, the glory as the Only Begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth’ (Jn 1.14). And why did St Paul say that he knew in part the knowledge of the divine Word? For He is known only to a certain extent through His activities. The knowledge of Himself in His essence and personhood remains inaccessible to all angels and men alike, and He can in no way be known by anyone. Bt St John, initiated as perfectly as humanly possible into the meaning of the Word’s incarnation, claims that he has seen the glory of the Word as flesh, that is, he saw the reason or the plan for which God became man, full of grace and truth. For it was not as God by essence, consubstantial to God the Father, that the Only Begotten Son gave this grace, but as having in the incarnation become man by nature, and consubstantial to us, that He bestows grace on all who have need of it. This grace we receive from His fullness always in proportion to our progress. Therefore, the one who keeps sacred the whole meaning of the Word of God’s become incarnate for our sake will acquire the glory full of grace and truth of the One who for our sake glorifies and consecrates Himself in us by His coming: ‘When He appears we shall be like Him’ (1 Jn 3.2).

I think the distinction is needed regarding:

a) Subject matter (is it God, or what’s been revealed to us about God).
b) Goal - i assume the Knowledge - but is it of God or about God.
c) Methods to be employed - beside the reason, and dialectic reason, (which is fine), there is also experience, revelation.
d) Our ability to comprehend/know/experience.

Once the above is properly defined, and the distinctions made, I see no puzzle in your questions. Dialectic reason does have its place, but cannot be applied to the incomprehensible issues.

 

[TOmNossor]

Sokoticasiva,
Thank you very much for your response!

With all due respect, I think you are trapped by false dillemas.

You say “Dialect reasoning” is a tool. Let us clarify what is the subject matter of that reasoning?
If the subject matter is God, I’d (on behalf of Orthodox)flatly reject that such a tool is apt.
If the subject matter is what’s been revealed to us about God, than it is apt.

My first post included a numbered list, but the numbers became bullets. Here is the number list with numbers.

1. Dialectic reasoning is important and dialectic reasoning is integral to those who accept the first 7 councils.
2. Dialectic reasoning is not to be applied to God and those who accept the first 7 councils can do so without embracing dialectic reasoning.
3. Dialectic reasoning produces hopeless contradictions for those who embrace it within historical Christianity.
4. Dialectic reasoning does not produce hopeless contradictions for those who embrace it within historical Christianity.

I expect EOs to embrace 2 & 3.
In your post you correct #2 slightly, but I think you generally agreed with it.

2* Dialectic reasoning is not to be applied to God but it may be applied to what has been revealed to us about God, and those who accept the first 7 councils can do so without embracing dialectic reasoning applied to God Himself.

I would like to go with that.

I will go through piece by piece your critic of my logical problem, but I am addressing Aquinas. I believe many EOs would be quite comfortable addressing Aquinas and suggesting that his use of dialectic reasoning is problematic.
Do you believe that the Catholic Church beyond the first 7 councils has utilized dialectic reasoning on the subject matter of God such that they have produced hopeless contradictions?

On to your discussion of my issue.
Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

Sokoticasiva,
Now, I will try to address your question concerning my issue.

Why “possesses”? Didn’t you make a presumption about what He is, not about what He does have?
He is omnipotent, good and incomprehensible.

I am not sure “possesses aseity” is a correct way of saying that God exists “a se.” In any case, when I said God is “immutable and impassible” you responded by saying that God is omnipotent, good and incomprehensible.
Does this mean that as an EO you are not committed firmly on God’s immutability and God’s impassibility?
If you are not committed, I will go one direction.
If you are committed, then the rest of my argument seems to stand.

In any case, there is almost no vein of Catholic thought in which God is not impassible and immutable. Would you agree with that regarding Catholicism? Any Catholics (other than Father Hosinski) disagree?

Huh? Define “unaffected”.

I am saying that humans do not induce a change upon God. God is unchangeable.
And as a subset of this, God is not changed in any way by anything a human does, says, thinks, …

Whom is able to answer “how” God knows something? Particularly limited by your presumptions - impassible and immutable - which are notions of human origin and capabilities, and applicable to incoprehensible only within the limits of predefined logical system.

I am not attempting to ask “how” God knows something (though I may have been unclear). I am attempting to suggest that there is no logical explanation for God knowing something given the constraints of impassibility and human freedom. Aquinas offered two paths, one rejected impassibility the other rejected human freedom.

Impassibile and Immutable are words that have a meaning. Impassible means that God does not change because something outside of God causes, lures, entices, … God to change. Immutable means that God does not change at all.
If you can solidify the definitions, I would welcome that (this is off the top of my head). If you reject this type of reasoning, and call this a mystery or a paradox, I will see what I can do with that.

Once the above is properly defined, and the distinctions made, I see no puzzle in your questions. Dialectic reason does have its place, but cannot be applied to the incomprehensible issues.

I was very surprised when an EO in another thread suggested that homiousius was a word that described a mystery associated with the revelations of God, but Transubstantiation was inappropriate because it was about God or something ???

Let me see if I can frame this in revelation.
Has it been revealed that God is impassible?
Has it been revealed that humans have free will?
Has it been revealed that God (before, after, or during the fact it doesn’t matter here) knows what choices humans make?

I suggest that if the answer to all of the above is “yes,” then dialect reasoning demands that something you believe to have been revealed has in fact not been revealed. Alternatively, dialect reasoning can be rejected concerning the above three things and we can say that there is no reasoned alignment; it is a mystery.

What do you think?
Charity, TOm

 

[Isa_Almisry]

I have only a moment to post, but:

The “subject” of this inquiry, God and His providence, are beyond didactic reasoning, as He cannot be contained.

What He has revealed, when He reveals it, becomes a part of the world of didactic reasoning, as it is in a sense incarnated, as when the Eternal God was born in the fullness of time.

These Revelations, including the Ecumenical Councils, are subject to didactic reasoning (hence Apologetics), but never can lose sight that they do not contain Truth, but only contain Him (btw, not it) inasmuch as He can be contained.

 

[Mickey]

but I am addressing Aquinas. I believe many EOs would be quite comfortable addressing Aquinas and suggesting that his use of dialectic reasoning is problematic.

I will stay out of the discussion because it is too heady for me. I am not knowledgeable enough in philosophy to contribute–besides, this stuff makes my head hurt.

But I would like to add: Was it not Aquinas who said something to the effect that his writing were all as straw because he had a direct experience (vision) of God?

 

[TOmNossor]

I have only a moment to post, but:

The “subject” of this inquiry, God and His providence, are beyond didactic reasoning, as He cannot be contained.

What He has revealed, when He reveals it, becomes a part of the world of didactic reasoning, as it is in a sense incarnated, as when the Eternal God was born in the fullness of time.

These Revelations, including the Ecumenical Councils, are subject to didactic reasoning (hence Apologetics), but never can lose sight that they do not contain Truth, but only contain Him (btw, not it) inasmuch as He can be contained.

I am quite comfortable recognizing the Christianity and faithfulness of folks who do not use reason to determine what is and is not true about God in this world. I will likely never be one of those folks, but God could ask it of me and I would seek to comply.
I am do however suggest that folks who invite me to use reason to walk out of my faith cannot embrace bald contradictions and call it superior to my responses to problems.

This is very short and it is about what God PRESUMABLY revealed. Am I wrong?

TOmNossor:
Let me see if I can frame this in revelation.
Has it been revealed that God is impassible?
Has it been revealed that humans have free will?
Has it been revealed that God (before, after, or during the fact it doesn’t matter here) knows what choices humans make?

I suggest that if the answer to all of the above is “yes,” then dialect reasoning demands that something you believe to have been revealed has in fact not been revealed. Alternatively, dialect reasoning can be rejected concerning the above three things and we can say that there is no reasoned alignment; it is a mystery.

What do you think?

Thanks for the response.
Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

I will stay out of the discussion because it is too heady for me. I am not knowledgeable enough in philosophy to contribute–besides, this stuff makes my head hurt.

But I would like to add: Was it not Aquinas who said something to the effect that his writing were all as straw because he had a direct experience (vision) of God?

I have in the past suggested that Aquinas followed a logical reasoned progression from some non-negotiable truths (most problematic being Creation ex Nihilo). His systematic theology was quite brilliant and much of his conclusions were unavoidable if you start with Catholic Dogma.
But, then Aquinas experienced God more fully than he had ever before in his life. He stopped writing, declared that what he had written in the past was straw compared to what he now knew, and would not explain himself further.

God is not IMO the being who a logical application of Catholic dogma requires Him to be. When one as bright and as thorough as Aquinas meets God they can see this. And Aquinas could also see that there was no reasoning from dogma to truth and yet the Catholic Church was still a wonderful God-filled organization (best in the world at the time).

This is a viable explanation of a very peculiar event in the life of a brilliant man, but certainly a simpler view that God is just so great that Aquinas no longer felt it appropriate to try to describe Him.
Charity, TOm

 

[sokoticasiva]

…

I’ve read your posts carefully, and those four presumed statements, but I need to express myself precisely and make you hear my stance, in the hope I can express as much Orthodoxy as possible to me, being neither a theologists nor a philosopher. And these need to be addressed prior to the answer to your specific questions and “Dumb Ox” Aquinas, whom I sympathize very much, but flatly reject his errors. Besides, I’ve read his works in English only, which is not my native, and it was cursory reading. I haven’t studied him so I’m not an expert in the field.

First about the dialectic reasoning, I assume you refer to the method of thesis, antithesis and synthesis, and not to sophistry. Mind, I neither find speculation as part of the method.

Second, dialectic reasoning is only one of the methods of logical reasoning, shile logical reasoning being only one of the methods of Christian Knowledge (See St. Maximos’ quotation in my post #2).

Third, one should bear in mind that philosophy in general was not able to answer the most fundamental questions that have been answered by Christianity. (This could be elaborated, but at the end of the debate, since it’s too profound to chew without knowing what are we actually debating.)

Fourth, one should bear in mind that anathema of the first cannon of the Sixth Council anathematized "refashioning the Greek myths ".

Now, I already pointed

think the distinction is needed regarding:

a) Subject matter (is it God, or what’s been revealed to us about God).
b) Goal - i assume the Knowledge - but is it of God or about God.
c) Methods to be employed - beside the reason, and dialectic reason, (which is fine), there is also experience, revelation.
d) Our ability to comprehend/know/experience.

Once the above is properly defined, and the distinctions made, I see no puzzle in your questions. Dialectic reason does have its place, but cannot be applied to the incomprehensible issues.

but it seems you missed it, or haven’t noticed the importance of these questions, so my Arab brother Isa Almisry basically repeated it.

Example of logically flawed questions: Can God create a stone so heavy He couldn’t lift?

Such questions containing more than one statement, one contradicting another, are nothing more but a false puzzle. So I basically stick with one statement per thought.

Example

2* Dialectic reasoning is not to be applied to God but it may be applied to what has been revealed to us about God, and those who accept the first 7 councils can do so without embracing dialectic reasoning applied to God Himself.

I’d rephrase it as:

2.1. Dialectic reasoning applied to God produces false answers.
2.2. Dialectit reasoning applied to what’s been revealed to us about Good should produce true answers.
2.3. Orthodox “of 7 councils” (and I believe Orientals “of 3 councils” and Assyrians “of 2 councils”) actually use the dialectic reasoning to examine what’s been revealed about God without applying the method to God Himself.
2.4. Conclusions reached by 2.3. are to be examined by other methods - above all if the conclusion reached was what’s been believed by all, everywhere and in all times (Cannon of St. Vincent of Lerins). Otherwise, it is just a human wisdom which is worthless in Orthodoxy.

Example:

Thesis - God created everything ab nihilo. (It’s been revealed to us - Exodus)

Antithesis - Than evil is from God, too, since He created everything ab nihilo.

(Mind, in strictly dialectic reasoning, I’d have to answer positive to the above antithesis, employing analogy. But I’m an Orthodox Christian, so

Synthesis - No, it isn’t. It’s not been revealed to us He created anything evil, read Exodus 5:20 - everything He created was good!

(If I had no explicit statement that everything He created was good, I’d have to interpret the exceptions in narrow fashion and reject the anthitesis.)

Now, since it seems to me you are in a hurry:

I believe many EOs would be quite comfortable addressing Aquinas and suggesting that his use of dialectic reasoning is problematic.

What I find problematic is his attempt to “christianize” Aristotelos, which ended in “aristotelizing” his exposition of Christianity. Luckully, he said that everything he had written was a straw. It’s the system of Aristotelos (as well as Plato or any other philosopher) that is incompatible with Christianity, not a particular thoughts.

That was short one.

Also

Does this mean that as an EO you are not committed firmly on God’s immutability and God’s impassibility?

No, it doesn’t. It means I avoided the notions you arbitrarily took as relevant, but are not necessarily. God is incomprehensible/inconceivable, that’s also been revealed to us (and we can conclude this from our pre-cognition, too). Words are used to describe human notions about Him.

You tried to prove He is immutable/impassible. That’s fine. Do you have a proof that it’s been revealed to us? I don’t think so. Consequently, I could say He is great, or that He is tall, enormous. But what relevance these statements have to the system?

This was short one, too.

 

[sokoticasiva]

I have in the past suggested that Aquinas followed a logical reasoned progression from some non-negotiable truths (most problematic being Creation ex Nihilo).

The problem with those "non-negotiable truths is that among them he equally placed both what’s been revealed to Christians and consequences of particular system of thought - that one of Aristotelos.

Yet another problem, perhaps, is to reduce the Knowledge to reason only. Bonaventura emphasized on will - that’s yet another problem.

I think I’m not wrong Orthodox would not reduce it neither to reason nor will.

His systematic theology was quite brilliant and much of his conclusions were unavoidable if you start with Catholic Dogma.

Again, the system of Arisotelos as such is not Christian Dogma. That’s the problem. His methods and logic could be used, but the results should be examined if that’s been velieved by all, everywhere and in all times.

Has it been revealed that God is impassible?

Please, point where in the Bible I can find this revelation.

 

[TOmNossor]

Sokoticasiva,
Thank you again for taking so much time to respond.

…being neither a theologists nor a philosopher. …Aquinas, whom I sympathize very much, but flatly reject his errors. Besides, I’ve read his works in English only, which is [not] my native, and it was cursory reading. …

Me too -].

First about the dialectic reasoning, I assume you refer to the method of thesis, antithesis and synthesis, and not to sophistry. Mind, I neither find speculation as part of the method.

Yes, I think that would be fine. Much of what I have in mind is just “logical reasoning” or “educated reasoning.” The rejection of the specific term (“dialectic reasoning”) was something I picked up dialoguing with EOs about 6 months ago.

Second, dialectic reasoning is only one of the methods of logical reasoning, shile logical reasoning being only one of the methods of Christian Knowledge (See St. Maximos’ quotation in my post #2).

I do not know what “shile logical reasoning” is.
To me Maximos avoided some of the problems that Origen highlighted by refusing to walk the path of dialectic reasoning. Am I off base here?

Fourth, one should bear in mind that anathema of the first cannon of the Sixth Council anathematized "refashioning the Greek myths ".

While I reject the common LDS and Protestant belief of theologies fall into Hellenism, I do not believe it defendable that there was much Greek thought present in the early church.

but it seems you missed it, or haven’t noticed the importance of these questions, so my Arab brother Isa Almisry basically repeated it.

I did not miss it, but I was too simple to recognize the importance of it. I think I understood Isa Almisry better though.

The message I am taking away so far is that what I think may have been revealed about God, has not necessarily been revealed about God (God’s impassibility) in your opinion. But, what has been revealed about God, is in fact able to be reasoned from rigorously to learn more. Is that correct?

Example of logically flawed questions: Can God create a stone so heavy He couldn’t lift?

Such questions containing more than one statement, one contradicting another, are nothing more but a false puzzle. So I basically stick with one statement per thought.

How exactly this is an example of your previous statement I do not know. Perhaps this means I did not understand your previous statement.

2.1. Dialectic reasoning applied to God produces false answers.
2.2. Dialectit reasoning applied to what’s been revealed to us about Good should produce true answers.
2.3. Orthodox “of 7 councils” (and I believe Orientals “of 3 councils” and Assyrians “of 2 councils”) actually use the dialectic reasoning to examine what’s been revealed about God without applying the method to God Himself.
2.4. Conclusions reached by 2.3. are to be examined by other methods - above all if the conclusion reached was what’s been believed by all, everywhere and in all times (Cannon of St. Vincent of Lerins). Otherwise, it is just a human wisdom which is worthless in Orthodoxy.

This I think I understand.
I will suggest later in my response to you that something you believe has been “revealed by God” is a profound misunderstanding by later authors of ideas that were originally formulated in the middle of the 2nd century. After the ideas formulated in the 2nd century were so enthusiastically received, the concept was read back into earlier Biblical documents.

It is my position that when we take what is revealed by God, utilize reason to draw conclusions, and find that those conclusions are unacceptable (be they illogical, ridiculous, or a violation of the Maxim of SVoL), it is appropriate to reject the conclusion; but if no error in reasoning is found, the original revelations are called into question. It seems to me that EOs are willing to reject the conclusion and leave the whole questions open because of the flaws in “human wisdom” when applied to divine questions. This is all well and good, but I maintain that if you live by reason you die by reason. To reject reason when it doesn’t work for you is to reject reason always OR to be inconsistent.
And of course I would never argue that “human wisdom” is sufficient to plumb the depths of God, but I will suggest that some exercises of reason are quite within the ability of the human. When those exercises produce results that are unacceptable, we should not declare that reason does not work; but instead declare that some (name removed by moderator)ut was in error.
cont…

 

[TOmNossor]

Thesis - God created everything ab nihilo. (It’s been revealed to us - Exodus)

Antithesis - Than evil is from God, too, since He created everything ab nihilo.

(Mind, in strictly dialectic reasoning, I’d have to answer positive to the above antithesis, employing analogy. But I’m an Orthodox Christian, so

Synthesis - No, it isn’t. It’s not been revealed to us He created anything evil, read Exodus 5:20 - everything He created was good!

(If I had no explicit statement that everything He created was good, I’d have to interpret the exceptions in narrow fashion and reject the anthitesis.)

I do not completely get what you are saying in the final (). I think it means that you would say that the Thesis results in the Antithesis, but we can recognize that the Antithesis is only true in a minority of examples/places/….

This is an excellent example. I submit that the antithesis surely results from the thesis. I will suggest that “God is good” is a truth and thus we have a contradiction. What you call synthesis is not an attempt to explain the contradiction, but an attempt to embrace two facts that contradict each other without rejecting either. Instead you reject dialectic reasoning. This is fine, but it is a rejection of tools of reason when the conclusion does not work.

Now, according to numerous Catholic and Protestant scholars the Bible does not teach Creation ex Nihilo. Gerard May (who still has the most thorough and scholarly work on this subject) argues that Creation ex Nihilo is true doctrine, but it is not stated explicitly until the middle of the 2nd century (early 2nd century for a heretical Gnostic philosopher).

1. I say, Creation ex Nihilo is not revealed.
2. I say, history demonstrates that it is a developed doctrine.
3. I say, that the Bible understood as its human authors would have understood it does not teach creation ex nihilo.

The later two facts are certainly still in debate (though many Creation ex Nihilo believers agree with me and to my knowledge no Creation ex Nihilo rejecters agree with you). But, if unflawed reason results in the Antithesis from the Thesis (of Creation ex Nihilo) and we agree that the Antithesis is false, then we must reject either that the Thesis is in fact a true revelation from God OR that reason can be applied to true revelations from God. I reject the Thesis and claim it is not a true revelation from God.

Now, I think you are misusing Thesis / Antithesis / Synthesis (but I could be wrong).
I think a correct way of using them is as follows.

Thesis – A is true.
Antithesis – Not A is false.
Synthesis – A is true in the following situation or as understood in the following way and Not A is true in other situations or understood in other ways.

The above synthesizes a thesis and antithesis that appear to create a problem, but properly understood do not.

And for those who have read Aquinas and Augustine, I know they have ways of explaining how God created ex nihilo and yet did not create evil. Plantinga does a better job than they do (atheists philosophers and religious philosophers all praise Plantinga, but his solution compromises the omnipotence of God IMO so it is not available to those who would not do this), but ultimately I think all fail. This is a more complex issue than my impassibility one, but since it was offered I went with it.

Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

I will try to get to more later.
Thank you again for trying to explain this.
If I understand, there is willingness within EO thought to reject the use of dialectic reasoning (even when the starting point is what EOs believe are true revelations).
I also understand among the EOs who reject this use of dialectic reasoning there is a strong criticism of the Catholic use of dialectic reasoning.
I suspect you are trying to dis-illusion me of at least some of the above, but it is not working yet.
Charity, TOm

 

[sokoticasiva]

TOmNossor:

If I understand, there is willingness within EO thought to reject the use of dialectic reasoning (even when the starting point is what EOs believe are true revelations).
I also understand among the EOs who reject this use of dialectic reasoning there is a strong criticism of the Catholic use of dialectic reasoning.I suspect you are trying to dis-illusion me of at least some of the above, but it is not working yet.

I’m not trying anything except to answer your query regarding EO that seemed intriguing. If we are to go itno “you didn’t persuade me”, let’s stop immediatelly - I don’t have time and will for that.

TOmNossor:

While I reject the common LDS and Protestant belief of theologies fall into Hellenism, I do not believe it defendable that there was much Greek thought present in the early church.
…
And for those who have read Aquinas and Augustine,…

Well, it can be easily proved that Christianity of the first ages made a lots of polemics with phylosophy (a.k.a. Greek/Hellenic thought) and beliefs of Hebrews that evolved into present day Judaism. My point is that it is in polemics against them unto present day, too.

And, to add, their usual method in puzzling Christianity is to oppose God’s omnipotence with God’s goodness. And it’s done by disregarding God’s incomprehensibility/inconcievebility.

All Christian theologist took a wrestle with that, and many expressed errors at some point - Origen, Justin, St. Augustine, and, yes, Thomas Aquinas. Even St. Gregory of Nyssa.

TOmNossor:

How exactly this is an example of your previous statement I do not know.

It was an example of false reasoning employing more than one statement, contradicting each other. An example of flawed logic. As you said:

TOmNossor:

When those exercises produce results that are unacceptable, we should not declare that reason does not work; but instead declare that some (name removed by moderator)ut was in error.

Exactly. That is my point from the begining of this conversation.

TOmNossor:

It is my position that when we take what is revealed by God, utilize reason to draw conclusions, and find that those conclusions are unacceptable (be they illogical, ridiculous, or a violation of the Maxim of SVoL), it is appropriate to reject the conclusion; but if no error in reasoning is found, the original revelations are called into question. It seems to me that EOs are willing to reject the conclusion and leave the whole questions open because of the flaws in “human wisdom” when applied to divine questions. This is all well and good, but I maintain that if you live by reason you die by reason.

That’s the core of our differences. Inconsistent with what? With the system of a phylosopher? I look for the consistency of the system of Christianity. No assertive statement about God can have its foundation in human wisdon, in speculation. It must have the foundation in revelation. Again:
sokoticasiva#2:

I think the distinction is needed regarding:

a) Subject matter (is it God, or what’s been revealed to us about God).
b) Goal - i assume the Knowledge - but is it of God or about God.
c) Methods to be employed - beside the reason, and dialectic reason, (which is fine), there is also experience, revelation.
d) Our ability to comprehend/know/experience.

Once the above is properly defined, and the distinctions made, I see no puzzle in your questions. Dialectic reason does have its place, but cannot be applied to the incomprehensible issues.

I challenge you to prove your assertive statement that God is impassible. I say it’s a notion that is product of human wisdom that can’t be supported by revelation. Contrary, God’s omnipotence, goodness and incomprehensibility/inconceivibility are fundamental notions that can be supported by revelation.

TOmNossor:

But, what has been revealed about God, is in fact able to be reasoned from rigorously to learn more. Is that correct?

Not to learn more, but to determine the understanding of revelation which is as accurate as possible to the limited human reason.

TOmNossor:

1. I say, Creation ex Nihilo is not revealed.

Huh?

Genesis 1:1 (King James Version)
Genesis 1
1In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

TOmNossor:

1. I say, history demonstrates that it is a developed doctrine.

Huh?

TOmNossor:

1. I say, that the Bible understood as its human authors would have understood it does not teach creation ex nihilo.

Huh?

TOmNossor:

I submit that the antithesis surely results from the thesis. I will suggest that “God is good” is a truth and thus we have a contradiction. What you call synthesis is not an attempt to explain the contradiction, but an attempt to embrace two facts that contradict each other without rejecting either. Instead you reject dialectic reasoning. This is fine, but it is a rejection of tools of reason when the conclusion does not work.

You are not reading my posts and that makes the conversation useless. /continued

 

[sokoticasiva]

…/continued

I reject your method of using the dialectic reasoning on improper subject.
sokoticasiva #9:

First about the dialectic reasoning, I assume you refer to the method of thesis, antithesis and synthesis, and not to sophistry. Mind, I neither find speculation as part of the method.

Here about the dialecti reasoning

This process works in a cycle that involves 3 basic steps:

· a thesis, which is a statement of an idea, viewpoint or position;

· an antithesis, which is the statement of an alternative and possibly contrary (conflicting) idea;

· a synthesis, which is the reconciliation of the two prior ideas in a way that integrates the best aspects of those ideas.

sokoticasiva #9:

Second, dialectic reasoning is only one of the methods of logical reasoning, while logical reasoning being only one of the methods of Christian Knowledge (See St. Maximos’ quotation in my post #2).

What you described as “embracing two facts contradicting each other” is exactly the dialectic reasoning, synthesis embracing both thesis and antithesis. And dialectic reasoning is just one of the methods of logical reasoning, as I said already at the begining in replying your initial query. I’m not explaining the logical contradiction at all - I’m examining what’s been revealed to us.

 

[LHM]

One of the more simple problems to lay out is as follows.

• God possesses aseity (exists a se). **He is impassible and immutable so unaffected/unchanged by that which is external to Him. **
• Humans have free will and choose to act.
  How does God know what humans do if he is not affected by humans in any way and humans are free?

Hi, as I was reading your thread with interest, & although I do not have any answers for you concerning your other questions, the above statement kind of got me thinking. I know God is unchanging in his being, but he does change his mind, so to speak, in that he says he is going to destroy a nation, then does not when that nation repents (Job?). Or even on a personal level when he turns away his wrath when we repent. So, in that way, could we be having an effect on his judment/actions? Just a thought.

Thank you

 

[TOmNossor]

LHM:
One of the more simple problems to lay out is as follows.

• God possesses aseity (exists a se). **He is impassible and immutable so unaffected/unchanged by that which is external to Him. **
• Humans have free will and choose to act.
  How does God know what humans do if he is not affected by humans in any way and humans are free?

Hi, as I was reading your thread with interest, & although I do not have any answers for you concerning your other questions, the above statement kind of got me thinking. I know God is unchanging in his being, but he does change his mind, so to speak, in that he says he is going to destroy a nation, then does not when that nation repents (Job?). Or even on a personal level when he turns away his wrath when we repent. So, in that way, could we be having an effect on his judment/actions? Just a thought.

Thank you
Aquinas would disagree with you and I think Sokoticasiva would as well.
I agree this is the witness of the Bible, but within both Hellenized Christianity and Hellenized Judaism these Biblical passages were read as not really representing changes in God.
In general, God is unchanging and our changing state results in our experiencing the unchanging God in a different way. I reject this, but I think it is pretty solidly Catholic and Orthodox.

I have tons to respond to from Sokotiscasiva, but not much time. Hopefully later.
Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

I will need some greater amount of time to dig through your post, but I wanted to say a little bit in response to my failure to get to the place you seem to be.

I really want to understand how to draw a line between accepting dialectic reasoning for some things and rejecting it for others works. In my dialogue with EOs about 6 months ago it became clear to me that they found problems with the way Catholics approached numerous questions. These problems were the same issues I found problematic in some cases.
My solution is to conclude that much of historic Christianity was a good faith effort to understand God and God’s revelations. But in the absence of continued revelation and in the presence of an emphasis upon right belief and dogmatism; good people made mistakes. The Orthodox solution is still somewhat of a mystery to me, but I am trying to understand.
I am likely too married to some form of reasoning to not prefer solutions to questions that I once thought were simply irreverent (“Can God make a rock to big for Him to move? Can he move it?) But, I do not believe that reasoning is an alter at which we should worship. There is certainly a vain of thought within my church that recognizes this.
I love Ostler’s quote to begin his systematic theology,
Yet in many ways rational exploration of the meaning of “God” is inevitable for the thoughtful believer, even though it is also strangely irrelevant, irreverant and even “irrevelant.” Rational exploration of God is strangely irrelevant to religious belief because what the believer seeks is a personal relationship with God rather than an intellectual grasp of his nature and attributes. To the believer who stands in God’s presence, the proofs of God’s existence derived from natural theology must seem quite absurdly superfluous.
More later.
Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

What I find problematic is his attempt to “christianize” Aristotelos, which ended in “aristotelizing” his exposition of Christianity. Luckully, he said that everything he had written was a straw. It’s the system of Aristotelos (as well as Plato or any other philosopher) that is incompatible with Christianity, not a particular thoughts.

It looks like I am not getting a lot of Catholic participation on this thread so I will try to dispense with Aquinas some. I agree Aristotelian issues can be problematic.

Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

No, it doesn’t. It means I avoided the notions you arbitrarily took as relevant, but are not necessarily. God is incomprehensible/inconceivable, that’s also been revealed to us (and we can conclude this from our pre-cognition, too). Words are used to describe human notions about Him.

You tried to prove He is immutable/impassible. That’s fine. Do you have a proof that it’s been revealed to us? I don’t think so. Consequently, I could say He is great, or that He is tall, enormous. But what relevance these statements have to the system?

I am going to try to make a few less arguments and focus on understanding more (at least for a while ).

I think you have said that God may or may not be impassible, but that God is impassible is not something that has been revealed. Thus, we may find value in discussing God as impassible, and He may indeed be impassible (perhaps completely, perhaps only in a certain sense); but we cannot take this valuable concept and use reasoning upon it.

It is however appropriate to take what has been revealed and us reasoning to understand better.

So the problem with my simple example of contradiction is that it reasons from a useful concept that may be true (God’s impassibility) and another concept (Human free will – which you have neither accepted as revealed truth or rejected) and then suggests that God cannot be omniscient. This is an inappropriate method because the starting point of God’s impassibility is not a revealed truth about God, but is a useful but human description of something that may be true about God in a certain way.

So, you do not necessarily reject God’s impassibility. And you do not reject the ability to use reason. And you do not question that reason applied to impassibility and free will does produce a problem for omniscience. But, you reject impassibility as a revelatory truth from which reasoning can proceed. Instead impassibility may be a non-revelatory concept with some or much truth; but not sufficient to use as I am using it.

Am I getting any closer?

I challenge you to prove your assertive statement that God is impassible. I say it’s a notion that is product of human wisdom that can’t be supported by revelation. Contrary, God’s omnipotence, goodness and incomprehensibility/inconceivibility are fundamental notions that can be supported by revelation.

I not only cannot show that impassibility is a revealed truth about God, I think it is largely false. So I crumble under your challenge like a wet noodle. Take that!

Would you expect a Catholic to take up your challenge and show that God is impassible? I would generally expect that they would.

Also, can let me ask this.

1. It is revealed that God is omnipotent. It would seem that He is omniscient as well because with all power He has all knowledge. Would you agree? If revelation does not tell us specifically God is omniscient, but we reasoned to it from revelation, can we reason from omniscience OR is it now removed from direct revelation and to reason from it is to possibly err?
   Is it not revealed that God is omniscient too?
2. Let me just postulate Human’s have free will so we can test it and find out what it would mean to our concepts.

Since 1 is revelation and 2 is a postulation under test we will reason from them.
If God is omniscient (1) and humans have free will (2) then God is not impassible (3).

Is this now a good dialectic that builds from the REVelation of God’s omniscience (1) to the conclusion that either (2) humans have free will OR (3) God is impassible is true, but both cannot be true.

Does that work?
Do you believe it is revealed that humans have freewill?

What you described as “embracing two facts contradicting each other” is exactly the dialectic reasoning, synthesis embracing both thesis and antithesis. And dialectic reasoning is just one of the methods of logical reasoning, as I said already at the begining in replying your initial query. I’m not explaining the logical contradiction at all - I’m examining what’s been revealed to us.

I think I am getting this, but it is hard for me to try to separate what you seem to not say is untrue. You did not say that “God is NOT impassible.” And yet what you do say is that “God is impassible” is not revealed truth.
I have always thought that one could take TRUTH and reason from it to conclusions. It seems that you are saying that reasoning from reveled truth is valid, but reasoning from human understanding of revealed truth is not valid. Is that close?

I think I have gone far enough for now. Thanks again for your time.
Charity, TOm