The burden of proof is on believers to prove God exists (according to atheist philosphers)

[IWantGod]

Perhaps you need to exert a bit more discretion over what comes out of your mouth?

When this kind of thing…

…proceeds from it, unqualified, and then you accuse me of stuffing your mouth, perhaps you need to be a bit more reflective about what it is you permit your fingers to type on your keyboard?

If you wish to continue making bold, brash, loose, and over-generalized statements as if they are indisputable and TRUE as they stand, and then accuse others of putting words into your mouth as if your statements couldn’t have been taken in any number of ways, please don’t complain about others “playing games.”

Perhaps you simply need to tighten your game by speaking more clearly, determinately and and self-critically.

Woooooe cowboys!!!

 

[inocente]

Actually, I never claimed that reading Aristotle or Aquinas will make God love them more; I would, however, claim that reading Aquinas and Aristotle would help THEM love God more – which is the crucial thing to be understood.

Yes, we are all children of God and loved by God; but it is our response to that love which will make all the difference. Since man is – according to Aristotle – a rational animal, humans act, when we act well, according to good reasons (and not by compulsion, emotion or causation,) which entails that understanding infused by grace is the means by which we are properly moved and NOT coercively compelled to act.

We are to know, love and freely serve God towards the ends for which God has created us because God is Truth Itself, Goodness Itself and Being Itself. Anything else is inherently self-defeating.

Learning also helps us to see that no one should attempt to have “influence over God” but to better understand the proper authority and influence that God (Truth, Goodness and Existence Itself) has over us – unlike, to take one example, the idea of pure “submission” to Allah that is prevalent in Islam.

Again, if the Church shared your view that reading Aristotle or Aquinas would benefit the flock then it would teach their philosophy to all children. It doesn’t.

One issue with your view is that it would mean the message of the cross is deficient, since you’re saying more ought to be added. Another issue is that neither Aristotle nor Aquinas are God, they have only human wisdom, and not necessarily the best wisdom, but you seem to be setting them up as prophets. You would need to prove that they bring people closer to God than caring for goats, or painting pictures, or doing math, or cooking paella or reading Shakespeare, etc. Your preferences are not others’ preferences.

 

[IWantGod]

Again, if the Church shared your view that reading Aristotle or Aquinas would benefit the flock then it would teach their philosophy to all children. It doesn’t.

One issue with your view is that it would mean the message of the cross is deficient, since you’re saying more ought to be added. Another issue is that neither Aristotle nor Aquinas are God, they have only human wisdom, and not necessarily the best wisdom, but you seem to be setting them up as prophets. You would need to prove that they bring people closer to God than caring for goats, or painting pictures, or doing math, or cooking paella or reading Shakespeare, etc. Your preferences are not others’ preferences.

Then why is there such a rich history of philosophy in the catholic Church?

Reason and faith are equally important.

 

[inocente]

Perhaps you need to exert a bit more discretion over what comes out of your mouth?

When this kind of thing…

…proceeds from it, unqualified, and then you accuse me of stuffing your mouth, perhaps you need to be a bit more reflective about what it is you permit your fingers to type on your keyboard?

If you wish to continue making bold, brash, loose, and over-generalized statements as if they are indisputable and TRUE as they stand, and then accuse others of putting words into your mouth as if your statements couldn’t have been taken in any number of ways, please don’t complain about others “playing games.”

Perhaps you simply need to tighten your game by speaking more clearly, determinately and self-critically.

None of that gives you leave to put words in my mouth. If you’re not sure what I meant, ask me, then you wouldn’t have to try to blame me to justify yourself. This is not exactly the first time you’ve done this.

Now I’m off for the evening so take your time thinking up your gotcha response. Or, alternatively, looking at your last sentence above, just remember the sticky “It is never acceptable to assume or say you know what another person thinks or needs”.

 

[inocente]

Then why is there such a rich history of philosophy in the catholic Church?

Reason and faith are equally important.

Nothing against philosophy, the point was simply whether the Church has changed the message of the Cross since St Paul’s day. I say no, as the message was already perfect.

If you Catholics want to debate whether Christ didn’t do a good enough job, and philosophers had to fix the message, and therefore the Church’s message now is not the same as Paul’s “we preach Christ crucified” then fine, but I’m thinking maybe I got this one right.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Then why is there such a rich history of philosophy in the catholic Church?

Reason and faith are equally important.

They are equally important because unbelievers often enlist reason as a rebuttal to faith. The Catholic Church has always known this. The object of Catholic philosophy is not to displace faith, but to support it for those who do not have it. The existence of God, for example, is an object of faith, but reason can be invoked to support the existence of God for those who are inclined not to believe in God.

St. Thomas’ five proofs are not needed for those who already believe, but they can be presented to believers as evidence at least that the existence of God is plausible, as opposed to fantastic. How else can we approach those shallow atheists who say they can no more believe in God than in Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny?

Likewise reason can help to support the plausibility of our spiritual nature and our immortal souls, not to mention moral theology. Again, the words of Christ are sufficient for those who have an open heart. But many have empty hearts and heads that rebel. Catholic philosophy exists to answer the rationalist’s objections to faith. To the degree that it is possible to chip away at the rationalist’s objections to God and religion it is possible to open up his heart to the reality and embrace of his Creator.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Again, if the Church shared your view that reading Aristotle or Aquinas would benefit the flock then it would teach their philosophy to all children. It doesn’t.

Well, now you are moving goalposts. There are many adults who couldn’t manage “reading Aristotle or Aquinas,” so why would the Church impose that burden on children? Directly reading difficult philosophers is one thing, but bringing that philosophy and metaphysics into material that is taught to children, put into terms they can understand and could digest would be a very smart move.

So the question is not whether or why the Church doesn’t currently make children read Aquinas or Aristotle, it is whether the Church would be wise to make those philosophies accessible to children. Doing so would be very helpful to the Church’s quest to educate all people regarding the scope and significance of what Jesus came to accomplish in more complete and comprehensive terms than it currently does.

Most serious analysts would agree that the state of current catechesis is somewhat of a shambles and that is why many young people are leaving the Church – it hasn’t explained the message of Christ in modern terms which the more “educated” masses can understand and accept.

One issue with your view is that it would mean the message of the cross is deficient, since you’re saying more ought to be added.

Changing the goalposts again. No one said the message of Christ needs to be substantively changed or added to. The key issue is explaining the true message of Christ in complete terms in a way that moderns can understand what that message is.

If your view is correct that saying anything about the message by using different terms or directing it towards different social or cultural groups is “adding” to it, then we can throw out all of the writings of the Church Fathers and the missionaries who interpreted the Gospel for those of foreign cultures who might be open to it by using primarily Platonic philosophical terms and ideas or cultural traditions not of near-eastern descent.

Another issue is that neither Aristotle nor Aquinas are God, they have only human wisdom, and not necessarily the best wisdom, but you seem to be setting them up as prophets. You would need to prove that they bring people closer to God than caring for goats, or painting pictures, or doing math, or cooking paella or reading Shakespeare, etc. Your preferences are not others’ preferences.

And neither are yours.

Why is there an either/or here? Not everyone cares for goats, reads Shakespeare or cooks paella. If the message of Christ is universal in scope – and it is – then it ought to fit well into the very best of human wisdom and have application to every human endeavor.

This gets us to the crux of the issue. Christ is the Word of God through whom ALL things that exist are made, as well as being the light that enlightens every human person, every human endeavor and all human learning.

This implies that science, philosophy, history, economics, politics, ethics, and basically every area of human knowledge, is best understood within the place each of these have as aspects of God’s overall purpose for creation.

In other words, the Gospel, Christ’s salvific message, is only truly complete if it not only influences but revolutionizes science, philosophy, history, economics, politics, ethics and – in short – EVERY human endeavor. Otherwise, it isn’t complete or universal.

If God created all reality around us, then the message of Christ, the Good News, impacts all that reality and the way we ought to understand it, whether through philosophy, science, ethics, history, politics or economics.

He is the savior of the world and that means he saves all of it AND that impacts the way in which we ought to understand all of it.

Nothing against philosophy, the point was simply whether the Church has changed the message of the Cross since St Paul’s day. I say no, as the message was already perfect.

If the message was “already perfect” then it has to be a complete and comprehensive message that provides the truth with regards to not only philosophy but to every area of human understanding.

Human understanding cannot truly be “understanding” if it does not understand the way things truly are. This means if Christ’s message is true and the way things truly are then it has to have not just wide applicability but complete and all-encompassing applicability with nothing left outside of it.

We are not able to dissect reality and say his message applies in this area – religion alone – and has nothing to say about every other area of human endeavor.

Continued…

 

[Peter_Plato]

… from last.

If you Catholics want to debate whether Christ didn’t do a good enough job, and philosophers had to fix the message, and therefore the Church’s message now is not the same as Paul’s “we preach Christ crucified” then fine, but I’m thinking maybe I got this one right.

I think it is you who are claiming that Christ “didn’t do a good enough job” by denying that Christ’s message has any philosophical validity, whatsoever. My point continues to be that Christ’s message is so completely true that it represents the best possible and most true philosophical position. Human beings may struggle to see that and may clumsily express it in philosophical terms, but the point remains that Christ’s message can and will be expressed in the best of philosophical terms without needing to “fix” or change that message at all. In fact, that message will change philosophy by revolutionizing it and bringing philosophy closer to the ultimate truth.

Just as we shouldn’t abandon science merely because science struggles to grasp complete reality, we shouldn’t abandon philosophy –*nor any other enterprise – because these are struggling to better depict the ultimate truth. If ultimate truth is, indeed, the message of Christ then that message can and will eventually be couched in the terms of every possible area of human endeavor.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Nothing against philosophy, the point was simply whether the Church has changed the message of the Cross since St Paul’s day. I say no, as the message was already perfect.

If you Catholics want to debate whether Christ didn’t do a good enough job, and philosophers had to fix the message, and therefore the Church’s message now is not the same as Paul’s “we preach Christ crucified” then fine, but I’m thinking maybe I got this one right.

Sure…the message was perfect and complete upon delivery:

Jude 3
3 Dear friends, although I was very eager to write to you about the salvation we share, I felt compelled to write and urge you to contend for the faith that was once for all entrusted to God’s holy people.

The challenge is in understanding God’s Word properly:

2 Peter 3:16
[Paul] writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.

Over time, the Church reflects upon and prays about God’s Word and comes to understand it more clearly.

 

[inocente]

Well, now you are moving goalposts. There are many adults who couldn’t manage “reading Aristotle or Aquinas,” so why would the Church impose that burden on children?

In post #555 you wrote “The real question is whether the Catholics, as a whole – and the world around them – would have been far better off had a much larger proportion of Catholics read Aristotle and Aquinas and could therefore explain much better than they do the subtle nuances between the various philosophical doctrines? I think yes – and not a subtle nuanced ‘yes,’ but an unmitigated one.”

And now you¡ve changed your mind. I’ve not changed mine. Suggest you argue this one out with your former self and report back on who won .

*Directly reading difficult philosophers is one thing, but bringing that philosophy and metaphysics into material that is taught to children, put into terms they can understand and could digest would be a very smart move.

So the question is not whether or why the Church doesn’t currently make children read Aquinas or Aristotle, it is whether the Church would be wise to make those philosophies accessible to children. Doing so would be very helpful to the Church’s quest to educate all people regarding the scope and significance of what Jesus came to accomplish in more complete and comprehensive terms than it currently does.

Most serious analysts would agree that the state of current catechesis is somewhat of a shambles and that is why many young people are leaving the Church – it hasn’t explained the message of Christ in modern terms which the more “educated” masses can understand and accept.*

Are you saying that for 2000 years the Church got it wrong, and it should have taught Aristotle’s pagan philosophy to serfs? Or else that everything was fine for 2000 years but something radically new happened in your lifetime?

I think that’s one for you to debate with other Catholics. As (name removed by moderator)ut to your debate, here’s some Pentecostals who strip away everything but the message of Christ nailed to a cross, and young people seem to find no difficulty. - youtube.com/watch?v=e33zCUm1ZnY

*Changing the goalposts again. No one said the message of Christ needs to be substantively changed or added to. The key issue is explaining the true message of Christ in complete terms in a way that moderns can understand what that message is.

If your view is correct that saying anything about the message by using different terms or directing it towards different social or cultural groups is “adding” to it, then we can throw out all of the writings of the Church Fathers and the missionaries who interpreted the Gospel for those of foreign cultures who might be open to it by using primarily Platonic philosophical terms and ideas or cultural traditions not of near-eastern descent.*

You’re conflating your favorite philosophers with theologians and apologists. And a philosopher of religion writes "In fact, Aquinas never called himself a philosopher. In his writings, “philosophers” always fall short of the true and proper “wisdom” to be in the Christian revelation. - Brian Davis

Apparently, Thomas agreed with Paul about the foolishness of human wisdom. And I agree with them both. Another one for you to debate with other Catholics.

*And neither are yours.

Why is there an either/or here? Not everyone cares for goats, reads Shakespeare or cooks paella. If the message of Christ is universal in scope – and it is – then it ought to fit well into the very best of human wisdom and have application to every human endeavor.

This gets us to the crux of the issue. Christ is the Word of God through whom ALL things that exist are made, as well as being the light that enlightens every human person, every human endeavor and all human learning.

This implies that science, philosophy, history, economics, politics, ethics, and basically every area of human knowledge, is best understood within the place each of these have as aspects of God’s overall purpose for creation.

In other words, the Gospel, Christ’s salvific message, is only truly complete if it not only influences but revolutionizes science, philosophy, history, economics, politics, ethics and – in short – EVERY human endeavor. Otherwise, it isn’t complete or universal.

If God created all reality around us, then the message of Christ, the Good News, impacts all that reality and the way we ought to understand it, whether through philosophy, science, ethics, history, politics or economics.

He is the savior of the world and that means he saves all of it AND that impacts the way in which we ought to understand all of it. *

That’s not an argument for the god of the philosophers. In fact you now seem to be saying that philosophers ought accept the Word in the same way as everyone else.

Either Christ being nailed to a cross is a perfect message from God or it isn’t. The message may need preachers and apologists to render it relevant to each generation, but as Paul says, the message is the power of God, and is wiser than human wisdom.

 

[inocente]

If the message was “already perfect” then it has to be a complete and comprehensive message that provides the truth with regards to not only philosophy but to every area of human understanding.

Human understanding cannot truly be “understanding” if it does not understand the way things truly are. This means if Christ’s message is true and the way things truly are then it has to have not just wide applicability but complete and all-encompassing applicability with nothing left outside of it.

We are not able to dissect reality and say his message applies in this area – religion alone – and has nothing to say about every other area of human endeavor.

When you question the perfection of Christ crucified, I wonder what else could he do for you.

To me, the bible is about building the kingdom and about salvation, it doesn’t set out to inform me how many times a day to brush my teeth or the art of motorcycle maintenance. Maybe Catholics believe different, I don’t know.

There are many rooms in the father’s house, and some people find the god of the philosophers brings no true understanding. Philosophers can’t do living God, their god is a logical construct, but we are not computers, we have other languages. Standing in MoMA, in front of The Starry Night, that ubiquitous painting from chocolate boxes and calendars, looking at how he applied the paint, suddenly van Gogh downloaded his soul and I understood Vincent, the man. Philosophers can do lots of things but that’s not one of them.

btw, you must know that in any event, the peace of God transcends all understanding (Phil 4).

I think it is you who are claiming that Christ “didn’t do a good enough job” by denying that Christ’s message has any philosophical validity, whatsoever. My point continues to be that Christ’s message is so completely true that it represents the best possible and most true philosophical position. Human beings may struggle to see that and may clumsily express it in philosophical terms, but the point remains that Christ’s message can and will be expressed in the best of philosophical terms without needing to “fix” or change that message at all. In fact, that message will change philosophy by revolutionizing it and bringing philosophy closer to the ultimate truth.

Just as we shouldn’t abandon science merely because science struggles to grasp complete reality, we shouldn’t abandon philosophy –*nor any other enterprise – because these are struggling to better depict the ultimate truth. If ultimate truth is, indeed, the message of Christ then that message can and will eventually be couched in the terms of every possible area of human endeavor.

I never claimed any of that and don’t agree with it. And Thomas may not agree with you that his unmoved mover argument is somehow expressing the message of Christ nailed to a cross. Philosophy has its place, but I’d have thought the best it can do is to argue that faith isn’t irrational, as Charles seems to be saying in post #585.

 

[inocente]

Sure…the message was perfect and complete upon delivery:

Jude 3
3 Dear friends, although I was very eager to write to you about the salvation we share, I felt compelled to write and urge you to contend for the faith that was once for all entrusted to God’s holy people.

The challenge is in understanding God’s Word properly:

2 Peter 3:16
[Paul] writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.

Over time, the Church reflects upon and prays about God’s Word and comes to understand it more clearly.

Agreed, the bible is alive as God is alive. But that isn’t an argument to replace the god of revelation with a god of the philosophers. Philosophy can help us understand ourselves and how we image God, but we are in God’s image, rather than God being the image of human wisdom.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Some believe the words of Jesus Christ are sufficient for salvation. And so they are.

But this did not stop, nor should it have stopped Paul from developing a further theology that helped to enlarge upon the essential words of salvation. The gloss that Paul preached did not end with Paul, nor should it have. While the words of Jesus are sufficient, they are not, nor were they meant to be, the only words for our salvation. Jesus himself prophesied that the Holy Spirit after his departure would come to inspire the apostles, as the Holy Spirit has done for centuries down to our time. Augustine, Aquinas and so many others are fruits of the Holy Spirit enlightening the world with wisdom far surpassing wisdom anywhere else in today’s mad, mad world.

 

[Peter_Plato]

I never claimed any of that and don’t agree with it. And Thomas may not agree with you that his unmoved mover argument is somehow expressing the message of Christ nailed to a cross. Philosophy has its place, but I’d have thought the best it can do is to argue that faith isn’t irrational, as Charles seems to be saying in post #585.

Of course Thomas would not agree that the Unmoved Mover expresses the entire message of Christ, but it does accurately couch that message in a proper view of reality – which is the crucial issue – i.e., to compellingly, accurately and truthfully set up a realistic portrait of reality within which the significance of Christ crucified makes sense.

Now if you want to argue that Christ crucified makes perfect sense to recalcitrant hedonists, atheistic utilitarians or eliminative materialists, then be my guest and explain how and why it could ever do so. The reason, I would submit, that it can’t make sense within those paradigms is because they are false to begin with. Nothing wrong with using true wisdom to dismantle false wisdom rather than abandon the whole enterprise and those who might lose their minds and souls believing in those paradigms.

If you want to argue that their souls don’t matter in the least and that Christ didn’t come to save them because he has no tolerance for the “foolishness” of this world, then you may have succeeded in writing-off a fairly substantial segment of humanity.

The point being, I suppose, that Christ himself would not leave any stone unturned – including overturning the stony wisdom of this world – to reach those separated from him.

In any case, any “wisdom” that is incomplete, compromised or simply false isn’t wisdom in any real sense of the word, so our knowing what is determinably true, including the truth of the Gospel message, is unarguably an aspect of true wisdom, which should never be discounted.

If the message of Christ is true then it must align with the nature of reality itself, and, in fact, shed light on all of reality rather than be held in complete isolation from it.

 

[inocente]

Of course Thomas would not agree that the Unmoved Mover expresses the entire message of Christ, but it does accurately couch that message in a proper view of reality – which is the crucial issue – i.e., to compellingly, accurately and truthfully set up a realistic portrait of reality within which the significance of Christ crucified makes sense.

Now if you want to argue that Christ crucified makes perfect sense to recalcitrant hedonists, atheistic utilitarians or eliminative materialists, then be my guest and explain how and why it could ever do so.

I’ve known a number of drug taking, womanizing hedonists who found great comfort in the forgiveness of Christ, and the realization they could start again, with a life made brand new.

But never have I known a hedonist who was born again by the unmoved mover argument. Maybe your atheistic utilitarian eliminative materialist would be attracted to the unmoved mover, but I suggest anyone with enough education to understand and pin those labels to himself would already have heard and discounted the argument long ago.

*The reason, I would submit, that it can’t make sense within those paradigms is because they are false to begin with. Nothing wrong with using true wisdom to dismantle false wisdom rather than abandon the whole enterprise and those who might lose their minds and souls believing in those paradigms.

If you want to argue that their souls don’t matter in the least and that Christ didn’t come to save them because he has no tolerance for the “foolishness” of this world, then you may have succeeded in writing-off a fairly substantial segment of humanity.

The point being, I suppose, that Christ himself would not leave any stone unturned – including overturning the stony wisdom of this world – to reach those separated from him.

In any case, any “wisdom” that is incomplete, compromised or simply false isn’t wisdom in any real sense of the word, so our knowing what is determinably true, including the truth of the Gospel message, is unarguably an aspect of true wisdom, which should never be discounted.

If the message of Christ is true then it must align with the nature of reality itself, and, in fact, shed light on all of reality rather than be held in complete isolation from it.*

Either Christ nailed to a cross is a perfect message, or else it’s not. If it is perfect then devices such as the unmoved mover are at best mere human wisdom and at worse false gods. I still say the most they can do, and the most Thomas intended, is to (arguably) show that faith is not necessarily irrational.

But if you want to argue that the Church’s message was in any sense less perfect or less complete in Paul’s day than after Thomas, that’s something you should debate with other Catholics, as sola scriptura rules me out.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

The doctrine of “sola scriptura” is not in the Bible, so what basis is there for it?

Even Peter cautions that you can be confused by reading Paul.

 

[inocente]

"One person considers one day more sacred than another; another considers every day alike. Each of them should be fully convinced in their own mind. Whoever regards one day as special does so to the Lord. Whoever eats meat does so to the Lord, for they give thanks to God; and whoever abstains does so to the Lord and gives thanks to God. For none of us lives for ourselves alone, and none of us dies for ourselves alone. If we live, we live for the Lord; and if we die, we die for the Lord. So, whether we live or die, we belong to the Lord. For this very reason, Christ died and returned to life so that he might be the Lord of both the dead and the living.

You, then, why do you judge your brother or sister?" - Romans 14

Seems fairly clear to me, which bit is confusing you?

 

[Lucretius]

Watch this: the burden of proof is a social construct. Arguments don’t come intristically with such a priori baggage.

Should we have to provide evidence for the claim that someone is inside a building, so that an officer can’t shoot into it, or should we assume that there are people inside the building until proven otherwise?

The concept of the burden of proof is dragged from a legal context: the idea is that, naturally, the accused would be a disadvantage, because we humans tend to be bias towards the first piece of information we’ve learned about someone, which would mean we are inclined to be bias in favor of the accuser. The burden of proof on the accuser helps rectify this situation and “balance the scales.” I think would should keep this in mind when discussing what burden of proof means in a philosophical context.

Christi pax.

 

[tonyrey]

Watch this: the burden of proof is a social construct. Arguments don’t come intristically with such a priori baggage.

Should we have to provide evidence for the claim that someone is inside a building, so that an officer can’t shoot into it, or should we assume that there are people inside the building until proven otherwise?

The concept of the burden of proof is dragged from a legal context: the idea is that, naturally, the accused would be a disadvantage, because we humans tend to be bias towards the first piece of information we’ve learned about someone, which would mean we are inclined to be bias in favor of the accuser. The burden of proof on the accuser helps rectify this situation and “balance the scales.” I think would should keep this in mind when discussing what burden of proof means in a philosophical context.

Christi pax.

A very good point! The burden of proof is on all of us - including atheists - to justify our particular interpretation of reality.

According to the OP:

All in all, atheists are not being irrational by justifying their atheism simply in a lack of evidence for God’s existence, any more than I am being irrational in justifying “a-bigfootism” in a lack of evidence for Bigfoot.

Atheists are being irrational because either they give no explanation of reality or they imply it is fundamentally mindless. Even if they accept the existence of individual minds they are being illogical by violating the principle of economy. One Supreme Mind is a more cogent explanation than an immense multitude. Bigfoot explains nothing whereas God explains everything!

 

[Lucretius]

I’ve known a number of drug taking, womanizing hedonists who found great comfort in the forgiveness of Christ, and the realization they could start again, with a life made brand new.

But never have I known a hedonist who was born again by the unmoved mover argument.

May I chime in here? Innocent, the reason hedonistic women converted in that way was because what was blocking their conversion was sins against temperance.

People like Dr. Ed Feser converted more so because they were ignorant of what Christians actually taught and believed, and had to contemplate Thomistic philosophy for a while until his heart became tamed enough to accept Christ (by the way, that is one person who was converted by the unmoved mover argument ).

Conversion involves a change of heart, and intellectual arguments influence one’s heart, especially those of us, like me, who’s personality has a tendency towards contemplation, reflection, and philosophy (by the way, that’s now two people who were converted in part due to Thomistic arguments ).

Maybe your atheistic utilitarian eliminative materialist would be attracted to the unmoved mover, but I suggest anyone with enough education to understand and pin those labels to himself would already have heard and discounted the argument long ago.

Educated people, in my experience, tend to be the worst at understanding Thomism, because their education gave them a false understanding of it, and, as I said before in my first post on this thread, we have a bias towards the first piece of information we encounter about something

If it is perfect then devices such as the unmoved mover are at best mere human wisdom and at worse false gods. I still say the most they can do, and the most Thomas intended, is to (arguably) show that faith is not necessarily irrational

When a Christian says that Jesus isn’t Pure Act, all I hear is “there are two Gods.”

What a natural theologian intends to do, first and foremost, is to understand God from the perspective of reason. All other intentions are secondary. God as understood by reason is necessarily incomplete, especially when seen from a perspective of faith, but this doesn’t make this knowledge false.

Faith is one way to understanding the Infinite God, reason is another. It would be foolish to say that the red I see, the smoothness I feel, and the sweetness I taste are not all the same apple.

God became man, and sanctified him, which includes his reason. You are correct that reason must be put in the proper context, like all of our abilities, and that intellectuals have a temptation to view natural theology as a replacement of Revelation, and theology as a replacement for religion in general, but you might or might not be going too far when you seemingly imply that reason doesn’t have place in the Christian life outside apologetics. But I might be misunderstanding you too.

Anyway, as the Lord says, let us reason together

Christi pax.