St. Thomas Aquinas and supernatural reason (complicated question, so please bear with me)?

[Bohm_Bawerk]

St. Thomas Aquinas argued that a person may know God’s attributes (Truth, Oneness, Transcendence, etc) through natural reason - i.e. reason independent of supernatural help. However, he argued that a person can only know the more specific details, such as the Trinity and the Incarnation through supernatural reason - i.e. reason that comes from the help of the Holy Spirit.

My question is - how did St. Thomas Aquinas arrive at the conclusion that one form of revelation is superior to another? For instance, why didn’t St. Thomas Aquinas conclude that Quranic revelation was indeed the revelation from God, rather than Biblical revelation, without recourse to natural reason (we can’t use natural reason as it’s a matter that requires supernatural reason).

Hopefully someone can explain this to me. Forgive me that my question is a bit difficult

 

[You]

St. Thomas Aquinas argued that a person may know God’s attributes (Truth, Oneness, Transcendence, etc) through natural reason - i.e. reason independent of supernatural help. However, he argued that a person can only know the more specific details, such as the Trinity and the Incarnation through supernatural reason - i.e. reason that comes from the help of the Holy Spirit.

My question is - how did St. Thomas Aquinas arrive at the conclusion that one form of revelation is superior to another? For instance, why didn’t St. Thomas Aquinas conclude that Quranic revelation was indeed the revelation from God, rather than Biblical revelation, without recourse to natural reason (we can’t use natural reason as it’s a matter that requires supernatural reason).

Hopefully someone can explain this to me. Forgive me that my question is a bit difficult

Because the Trinity is implied in the Bible and rejected in the Quran, I presume.

 

[Trevor_Stamm]

St. Thomas Aquinas argued that a person may know God’s attributes (Truth, Oneness, Transcendence, etc) through natural reason - i.e. reason independent of supernatural help. However, he argued that a person can only know the more specific details, such as the Trinity and the Incarnation through supernatural reason - i.e. reason that comes from the help of the Holy Spirit.

My question is - how did St. Thomas Aquinas arrive at the conclusion that one form of revelation is superior to another? For instance, why didn’t St. Thomas Aquinas conclude that Quranic revelation was indeed the revelation from God, rather than Biblical revelation, without recourse to natural reason (we can’t use natural reason as it’s a matter that requires supernatural reason).

Hopefully someone can explain this to me. Forgive me that my question is a bit difficult

Natural theology and revealed theology cannot contradict each other. If we are to observe the divine attributes in the natural theological sense, we have only to observe the “revealed” doctrines of any faith to seek compatibility. I believe the Quranic revelation is Fideistic, if I’m not mistaken and thus usurps natural theology. This was the problem with the Enlightenment Era philosophers, such as Pierre Bayle.

I think this is why St. Aquinas used Aristotle as his basis for natural theology, not just because Aristotle works were the main focus of those times, because it might serve against Aquinas that he was Catholic before a philosopher and most will think his revealed theology directed his natural theology. But this wasn’t the case for Aristotle.

 

[Al_Moritz]

St. Thomas Aquinas argued that a person may know God’s attributes (Truth, Oneness, Transcendence, etc) through natural reason - i.e. reason independent of supernatural help. However, he argued that a person can only know the more specific details, such as the Trinity and the Incarnation through supernatural reason - i.e. reason that comes from the help of the Holy Spirit.

My question is - how did St. Thomas Aquinas arrive at the conclusion that one form of revelation is superior to another? For instance, why didn’t St. Thomas Aquinas conclude that Quranic revelation was indeed the revelation from God, rather than Biblical revelation, without recourse to natural reason (we can’t use natural reason as it’s a matter that requires supernatural reason).

Hopefully someone can explain this to me. Forgive me that my question is a bit difficult

Hi Bohm,

as I see it, the rational choice which is the proper divine revelation can be made by natural reason, e.g. historical considerations about how divine revelation unfolded over time on Earth (possibly aided by philosophical considerations). But once the decision is made which is the proper divine revelation, and the decision is made to trust it, the contents of this divine revelation touch supernatural reason – they can only be known because God revealed them (Trinity, Incarnation etc.)…

Of course, while natural reason can make a choice regarding which is the proper divine revelation, actual faith in it is a gift from God’s grace as well.

 

[Katholish]

St. Thomas Aquinas argued that a person may know God’s attributes (Truth, Oneness, Transcendence, etc) through natural reason - i.e. reason independent of supernatural help. However, he argued that a person can only know the more specific details, such as the Trinity and the Incarnation through supernatural reason - i.e. reason that comes from the help of the Holy Spirit.

My question is - how did St. Thomas Aquinas arrive at the conclusion that one form of revelation is superior to another? For instance, why didn’t St. Thomas Aquinas conclude that Quranic revelation was indeed the revelation from God, rather than Biblical revelation, without recourse to natural reason (we can’t use natural reason as it’s a matter that requires supernatural reason).

Hopefully someone can explain this to me. Forgive me that my question is a bit difficult

When we say that something cannot be known by reason alone, we don’t mean that human reason is not required at all. We use human reason in identifying revelation, but that doesn’t make the revelation itself any less supernatural. Revelation is always marked by some form of miracle, an external sign which supercedes the laws of nature. The reason that God provides miracles is so that our human reason can recognize the validity of the revelation content delivered at the same time. This is why Jesus performed so many miracles, or why God appeared in the form of a burning bush to Moses.

 

[Earnest_Bunbury]

St. Thomas Aquinas argued that a person may know God’s attributes (Truth, Oneness, Transcendence, etc) through natural reason - i.e. reason independent of supernatural help. However, he argued that a person can only know the more specific details, such as the Trinity and the Incarnation through supernatural reason - i.e. reason that comes from the help of the Holy Spirit.

My question is - how did St. Thomas Aquinas arrive at the conclusion that one form of revelation is superior to another? For instance, why didn’t St. Thomas Aquinas conclude that Quranic revelation was indeed the revelation from God, rather than Biblical revelation, without recourse to natural reason (we can’t use natural reason as it’s a matter that requires supernatural reason).

Hopefully someone can explain this to me. Forgive me that my question is a bit difficult

THOMAS AQUINAS, ISLAM AND THE ARAB PHILOSOPHERS

Thomas excuses himself first by saying that he knew little about Islam. Nevertheless, he gave reasons why it is not reasonable to accept MuŒammad as a prophet: first because he worked no miracles in proof of his mission (Thomas did not take the Qur’ân as a miracle), and secondly because he won followers by a show of force and by promising them sensual satisfaction in this life and the next.

CONTRA GENTILES Bk. 1, Ch. 6

What is more, no wise men, men trained in things divine and human, believed in him from the beginning, Those who believed in him were brutal men and desert wanderers, utterly ignorant of all divine teaching, through whose numbers Muhammad forced others to become his followers by the violence of his arms. Nor do divine pronouncements on the part of preceding prophets offer him any witness. On the contrary, he perverts almost all the testimonies of the Old and New Testaments by making them into fabrications of his own, as can be. seen by anyone who examines his law. It was, therefore, a shrewd decision on his part to forbid his followers to read the Old and New Testaments, lest these books convict him of falsity. It is thus clear that those who place any faith in his words believe foolishly.

HOW THE HUMAN REASON IS RELATED TO THE TRUTH OF FAITH

[1] There is also a further consideration. Sensible things, from which the human reason takes the origin of its knowledge, retain within themselves some sort of trace of a likeness to God. This is so imperfect, however, that it is absolutely inadequate to manifest the substance of God. For effects bear within themselves, in their own way, the likeness of their causes, since an agent produces its like; yet an effect does not always reach to the full likeness of its cause. Now, the human reason is related to the knowledge of the truth of faith (a truth which can be most evident only to those who see the divine substance) in such a way that it can gather certain likenesses of it, which are yet not sufficient so that the truth of faith may be comprehended as being understood demonstratively or through itself. Yet it is useful for the human reason to exercise itself in such arguments, however weak they may be, provided only that there be present no presumption to comprehend or to demonstrate. For to be able to see something of the loftiest realities, however thin and weak the sight may be, is, as our previous remarks indicate, a cause of the greatest joy.

 

[akasseb]

I am pretty sure Aquinas addressed this, but I don’t have access to the *Summa *right now. But here are my introductory thoughts.

We can use reason to prove that God exists and even determine many of His attributes. But reason can only get us so far, as there is an infinite gap between Creator and creatures. Therefore, to know that God is a Trinity has to be revealed to us. But all the things discovered about God through reason still stand. It’s just that revelation has opened up the mind to greater vistas. Like the relationship with grace and nature, revelation builds on reason and perfects it.

When looking at other religious traditions, we have to look at motives of credibility. For instance, let us consider the prophetic witness. The Old Testament is full of prophecies of the Messiah, which were fulfilled in Christ. There are no prophecies for Muhammed. Furthermore, he borrowed from the Christian tradition, and adapted it to his own needs. And as mentioned above, Islam spread through the sword, rather than through love and truth.

Catholicism has always taught that reason and revelation are two wings leading us to the truth. Islam began abandoning reason a thousand years ago. This is why the Middle East is in such a sorry state. The fact that reason and Islamic revelation are entirely distinct should make one see that their religion is of men.

 

[paduard]

I am pretty sure Aquinas addressed this, but I don’t have access to the *Summa *right now. But here are my introductory thoughts.

We can use reason to prove that God exists and even determine many of His attributes. But reason can only get us so far, as there is an infinite gap between Creator and creatures. Therefore, to know that God is a Trinity has to be revealed to us. But all the things discovered about God through reason still stand. It’s just that revelation has opened up the mind to greater vistas. Like the relationship with grace and nature, revelation builds on reason and perfects it.

When looking at other religious traditions, we have to look at motives of credibility. For instance, let us consider the prophetic witness. The Old Testament is full of prophecies of the Messiah, which were fulfilled in Christ. There are no prophecies for Muhammed. Furthermore, he borrowed from the Christian tradition, and adapted it to his own needs. And as mentioned above, Islam spread through the sword, rather than through love and truth.

Catholicism has always taught that reason and revelation are two wings leading us to the truth. Islam began abandoning reason a thousand years ago. This is why the Middle East is in such a sorry state. The fact that reason and Islamic revelation are entirely distinct should make one see that their religion is of men.

Thank you; well put in my opinion especially the last paragraph.

God Bless

 

[Acapiteadcalcem]

My question is - how did St. Thomas Aquinas arrive at the conclusion that one form of revelation is superior to another? For instance, why didn’t St. Thomas Aquinas conclude that Quranic revelation was indeed the revelation from God, rather than Biblical revelation, without recourse to natural reason (we can’t use natural reason as it’s a matter that requires supernatural reason).

St Thomas says you cannot arrive at revelation through the light of natural reason, so it is not the conclusion of a demonstration. Things known by natural reason are directed towards an end by us (ST 1a, q12, a13, ad3) whereas things known through revelation are directed by God to us. Hence St Thomas refers to revelation ‘Divine Invitation’ since it is initiated by God, and not arrived at by us through our own efforts.

For St Thomas, all human beings are disposed towards revelation at a very primary level, since all people want to be happy and this is, in a confused and indistinct way, a desire for God (1a, q2, a1, ad1). But infused faith is required in order to accept revelation as given to us. And the truth of it is corroborated–not demonstrated–throught things like miracles, personal experience, and from the discovery that truths revealed to us do in fact cohere with other known truths, first principles and self-evident realities. Thus, as Akasseb noted above, revelation does not dispense with natural reason, but in fact completes it.