Theology Question- The Summa & Fides et Ratio

[FightingFat]

Hey all, in a discussion regarding the value of faith & reason and it’s basis in Greek philosophy brought on from discussions after Regensberg, I have a friend who is reading B.Russell: History of Western Philosophy. He states the following: -

Regarding the Summa Theologica:

“Or take again the arguments professing to prove the existence of God. All these, except the one from teleology in lifeless things, depend upon the supposed impossibility of a series having no first term. Every mathematician knows that there is no such impossibility; the series of negative integers ending with -1 is an instance to the contrary. But here again no Catholic is likely to abandon belief in God even if he becomes convinced that St.Thomas’ arguments are bad; he will invent other arguments or take refuge in revelation”

Regarding the supposed dialogue between faith and reason:

“There is little of the true philosophic spirit in Aquinas. He does not, like the Platonic Socrates, set out to follow the wherever the argument may lead. He is not engaged in any enquiry, the result of which it is impossible to know in advance. Before he begins to philosophize, he already knows the truth; it is declared in the Catholic faith. If he can find apparently rational arguments for some parts of the faith, so much the better; if he cannot, he need only fall back on revelation. The finding of arguments for a conclusion given in advance is not philosophy, but special pleading. I cannot therefore feel that he deserves to be put on a level with the best philosophers either of Greece or of modern times.”

p.426-7 Russell: History of Western Philosophy

I would add that comparing the history of the Catholic Church to that of the Islamic faith - the former has a much worse reputation deserving of criticism than the latter. Many of the Saints were violent demagogues, whereas many Islamic thinkers of antiquity were capable of a much broader spectrum of thought - and less prone to burn people for heresy…

Any ideas of how to approach these statements appologetically?

 

[Vincent]

Or take again the arguments professing to prove the existence of God. All these, except the one from teleology in lifeless things, depend upon the supposed impossibility of a series having no first term. Every mathematician knows that there is no such impossibility; the series of negative integers ending with -1 is an instance to the contrary. But here again no Catholic is likely to abandon belief in God even if he becomes convinced that St.Thomas’ arguments are bad; he will invent other arguments or take refuge in revelation

When Aquinas is referring to the first cause or prime mover, he is not thinking of it as one within a series of immanent movers or causes. That indeed could regress indefinitely.

For example, a tree has a bunch of causes at the immanent level: water, sunlight, soil, carbon, atoms, maybe a gardener or two, etc. In theory this chain of causes could go back ad infinitum.

Rather, Aquinas is referring to “something” that transcends these movers or causes: the act of “to-be”.

To explain the act of “to be” for any single thing that is not its own act of “to be” (such as our tree or even an individual atom that belongs to the tree) you must arrive at the subsistent act of “to be” itself.

That is what Aquinas means by “First”, for it is impossible to regress beyond a Reality that is pure Existence.

 

[dsb1808]

Hey all, in a discussion regarding the value of faith & reason and it’s basis in Greek philosophy brought on from discussions after Regensberg, I have a friend who is reading B.Russell: History of Western Philosophy. He states the following: -

Any ideas of how to approach these statements appologetically?

A couple of thoughts:

1. Russell’s History is not considered a standard work–if it ever was–and it is certainly not definitive (his Problems of Philosophy is still worth reading). Copleston’s History of Philosophy series is much better, as are numerous other works.
2. There are not a lot of reasons given in the quotes. They seem to be unsupported claims or opinions (but that might be the limitation of the forum). There are a number of authorities and arguments against every point cited–modern defenses and criticisms of Aquinas, for example.
3. Mathematicians do not all agree. David Hilbert, for example, in “On the Infinite,” claims “Our principle result is that the infinite is nowhere to be found in reality” (from Philosophy of Mathematics, eds. Benacerraf and Putnam, p. 201). William Lane Craig uses this all the time in his apologetics.
4. The stuff on faith and reason is just an expression of Russell’s general hostility to religion. Taken as an argument it contains too many logical fallacies to be taken seriously.

David

 

[FightingFat]

That’s great thanks guys!

What about the “Saints are demagogues and burn people for heresy” line at the end there?

 

[FightingFat]

dsb 1808:

Russell’s History is not considered a standard work

Who by?

 

[dsb1808]

Who by?

By professional philosophers.

David