He was born of a noble family in southern Italy, and was educated by the Benedictines. In the normal course of events he would have joined that order and taken up a position suitable to his rank; but he decided to become a Dominican instead. His family were so scandalised by this disreputable plan that they kidnapped him and kept him prisoner for over a year; but he was more obstinate than they were, and he had his way at last.
He studied in Paris and in Cologne under the great philosopher St Albert the Great. It was a time of great philosophical ferment. The writings of Aristotle, the greatest philosopher of the ancient world, had been newly rediscovered, and were becoming available to people in the West for the first time in a thousand years. Many feared that Aristotelianism was flatly contradictory to Christianity, and the teaching of Aristotle was banned in many universities at this time – the fact that Aristotle’s works were coming to the West from mostly Muslim sources did nothing to help matters.
Into this chaos Thomas brought simple, straightforward sense. Truth cannot contradict truth: if Aristotle (the great, infallible pagan philosopher) appears to contradict Christianity (which we know by faith to be true), then either Aristotle is wrong or the contradiction is in fact illusory. And so Thomas studied, and taught, and argued, and eventually the simple, common-sense philosophy that he worked out brought an end to the controversy. Out of his work came many writings on philosophy and theology, including the Summa Theologiae, a standard textbook for many centuries and still an irreplaceable resource today. Out of his depth of learning came, also, the dazzling poetry of the liturgy for Corpus Christi. And out of his sanctity came the day when, celebrating Mass, he had a vision that, he said, made all his writings seem like so much straw; and he wrote no more.
(From universalis)
St Thomas Aquinas is the patron of all universities and students.
…which we know by faith to be true…
Because there’s no way of proving it…
KA
For a given meaning of the word ‘proof’.
Have you read any Hans Urs Von Balthasar over the years JP? I’ve bought a couple of his books, it’s fascinating stuff, very deep and difficult, at least to me.
No, Mr Badger. Another one to put on my list. Keep them coming, please.
Ha ha JP, yes we in the real world have a definition of the word ‘proof’ that is totally at odds with your ‘faith’ version of the word!
KA
A great book on the great saint is GK Chesterton’s biography of him.
KA, I’d recommend to you (if you are not too worried about losing the second half of your nomenclature!) the book “reason to believe” by Richard Purtill. Very concise book by a theistic philosopher about how everything only makes sense (reason, morality, happiness) in a theistic worldview. While it is not a scientific “proof” of theisim, it is a very good philosophical proof none-the-less. After all, to state that “a given thing is only true if it can be proved by science” is a statement which cannot be proved by science 🙂 But read the book, it is a much explanaition than I can give!
Here are a list of definitions I use, KA. (I’ve left off the three to do with alcohol, printing and coin minting.) Your definitions are 3a and 4. I also use the others.
1. The evidence or argument that compels the mind to accept an assertion as true.
2. a. The validation of a proposition by application of specified rules, as of induction or deduction, to assumptions, axioms, and sequentially derived conclusions.
b. A statement or argument used in such a validation.
3.a. Convincing or persuasive demonstration: was asked for proof of his identity; an employment history that was proof of her dependability.
b. The state of being convinced or persuaded by consideration of evidence.
4. Determination of the quality of something by testing; trial: put one’s beliefs to the proof.
5. Law The result or effect of evidence; the establishment or denial of a fact by evidence.
I think what is sometimes called “the God of the philosophers” is discernible to human reason, and to an extent capable of being experienced in contemplation and numinous encounter. Pure atheism is already a manifestly inadequate world view before we start considering full blown theism.
Revelation, God acting in the world, occurs in history, and must convince people on those grounds. And even then, after the historical work is done, the story told in the NT must be judged to have a ring of truth about it or not. What can be proved is the transformative effect it has on those who do discern truth in it.
What can be proved is the transformative effect it has on those who do discern truth in it.
All that can be ‘proved’ (and I would say ‘observed’) is that a great number of people who ‘get’ religion (of whatever flavour) undergo some sort of psychological change, inasmuch as they start believing things without the burden of proof that they once would have dismissed as simply ridiculous.
KA
Gives me a great idea for a story about the development of religious awareness in AIs. It’s probably been done, though.
There are things that fall between “blind faith” and “proof”. Discerning honesty for example. — We can get it wrong, but our capacity is real and necessary.
I see they’ve had to put down the poor seal pup that was beaten earlier in the week. Not directly relevant, but very sad.
Interestingly the AI would have to learn that the scientist who made her was in no sense God, she would need to learn the difference between a transcendant God and an imminent maker.
I draw a distinction – perhaps it is arrogant of me – between those who hold to the beliefs (or non-beliefs) inculcated into them by their environment, and those who have thought things through and made up their own minds.
Rejecting a childlike, simplistic belief system is, I think, necessary for most people. We are meant to use our brains. I think this is equally important for both theists and non-theists.
Yes — and of course four hundred years ago (and more recently really) there was a default Christianity, every 15 year old child knew there was a God, even if the topic seemed a little stuffy. There is an increasingly default atheism, worldly teenagers know there isn’t a God, even if they’re not quite sure what they don’t believe in or why.
As a social question it would be interesting to ask if the “masses” follow or lead the “intellectuals”? — Eg Luther’s original thought followed by a mass eruption which occured well before his theology could have been absorbed by society
JP,
I couldn’t agree more. I would be very interested to know why some people are convinced by religion (like you) and some people are not (like me). Is it that our standards of proof differ, that our levels of gullibility are different or that some of us are so uncomfortable with the prospect that there is nothing after this life that they have to cling to some hope, whatever form that might take?
KA
Now, now, KA. Reread your last sentence and tell me you lack all arrogance and certainty! It is clear that you assume that atheism is right and religious people are stupid, crazy, or desparate.
Certainly, from what little you’ve told me of the beliefs you rejected, I’m not surprised you did. I did too! Where our circumstances differed is that I’d already been exposed to theology that made a more rational case, and to experiences of God that I couldn’t discount without going down the whole ‘life is but a dream’ route and becoming a post-Modernist.
Not believing in God, for me, meant not believing in the reality of anything I perceived. I have, from time to time, toyed with not believing in me. I have been very cross with God and refused to talk to him. I have been embarrassed by my own behaviour and avoided him as strenuously as possible. But I have never not believed in him. For me, that has never been an option.
So my choice – my own way of discovering truth – was to figure out what and who God was.
“…some of us are so uncomfortable with the prospect that there is nothing after this life that they have to cling to some hope, whatever form that might take?…”
It’s a fair point KA. But to take my own case, the only one I know inside out. — An afterlife was not a positive factor in returning to the Church. Death as oblivion, never to be experienced, did not give me any anxiety as an atheist. Most of the fear of death, I’ve always thought, comes from the confusion of not being able to imagine ceasing to exist. I can say with absolute honesty that the idea of eternal life (is that even desirable) struck me as much more disturbing. I have since learnt that C.S Lewis had similar thoughts. — So that explanation won’t wash in my case.
On this issue of critically examining ones upbringing, I have to admit what may be seen as a weakness. — My return to theism, and Christianit,y was hard work, an internal battle of conflicting thoughts etc. — But the return to Catholicism, once the ground work was layed — was the easiest thing in the world. Even something as simple as seeing someone touch their forehead with holy water is an instant connection to my childhood, Catholicism was a return home — a protestant might well point out that I hardly did due diligence on the Petrine claims 🙂
Perhaps we make a complete case between us, Mr Badger, since I came to a woolly sort of theism without difficulty, became a Christian with reluctance, then fought the Petrine claims tooth and nail for several years after I found them to hang together intellectually.
Yes, of course we mustn’t be too suspicious of having been (through no merit) lucky to begin with. — Though I still chuckle at Hitchens’description of C.S Lewis “an Oxford Don from Ulster who contrived to be surprised by Anglicanism” 🙂
“then fought the Petrine claims tooth and nail for several years after I found them to hang together intellectually.”
I take that to mean at an emotional elevel. Was that more a function of upbringing and ingrained ideas about the papacy, or a sense that those claims didn’t gel with what you saw as central to Christianity?
Upbringing and prejudice. The claims gelled all too well, which upset me mightily.
JP,
I’ve re-read what I said and it does come across as you say. I’m sorry, I didn’t mean it to sound like that and it certainly wasn’t meant in that way. Now I freely admit that I do think that you’re all a bit batty ( 🙂 ), but I respect your right to believe what you believe. My only argument is with Christianity’s lack of evidence and the lack of integrity of the Catholic Church as a commercial entity.
KA
No problem, KA. And I also have a problem with those in the Church – at all levels – who treat her as a commercial entity. I venture to claim that their lack of integrity upsets me a lot more than it does you.
“the lack of integrity of the Catholic Church as a commercial entity.”
Sell the Sistine Chapel? It’s been mooted 🙂
Now I freely admit that I do think that you’re all a bit batty ( 🙂 )
KA, in a complicated world a lot of things seem batty, eg relativity etc. Why should revelation be any less surprising?
But Mr B, there is evidence for [The Theory of] relativity, there is a paucity of evidence for Christianity.
And sell the Sistine Chapel, no, but you know what I mean, you’ve read Robertson’s book!
KA
KA, sure, I wasn’t arguing evidence, rather that surprising (batty) beliefs can’t be ruled out of court. Eg — a transcendant God may be present in the Emperor or the gold covered temple, — but seeing God in an executed peasant? – Silly.
On the other issue, nothing I’ve read whether it’s Robertson or flagrant apologetics has allowed me to feel sure. The Church needs financial integrity, and the Vatican Bank hasn’t been free of scandals, but I don’t think these thuings touch on the value of the Church per se. — But I freely admit I’m not qualified to defend the Church from all legal and financial criticism.
Did you take my point about the afterlife?
Mr B,
Yes, I get what you say about the afterlife and I concur. The concept of an everlasting life spent with some of the sanctimonious tossers associated with religion scares the bejesus out of me 🙂
KA
“The concept of an everlasting life spent with some of the sanctimonious tossers associated with religion scares the bejesus out of me ”
Oh yes, yes indeed.
Too true. If there is an eternal life, there must be a Purgatory.
Legend has it that the the family of Aquinas tried to tempt him with prostitutes.