Calling all Thomists

In the spirit of the best way to learn something is to teach it, I led a Church History section on Thomas Aquinas' Summa yesterday. We discussed Part One, Questions 1 & 2, which deal with the nature and extent of Christian doctrine, and the existence of God.

In these first two questions, Thomas is trying to prove that Christian theology meets Aristotle's three criteria for a science: 1. Its first principles are secured; 2. It proceeds by deductive syllogisms, and 3. It's comprehensive.

Now one might object that Theology is not a science because not everyone believes; thus its first principles aren't secured. Thomas replies that a science's first principles can be secured in themselves, like mathematics, or they can be secured in a higher science, like music, which is a science because it's applied math. So then, Christian theology is a science in the way that music is. It's first principles aren't secured in itself, but in Divine Revelation, which is even more secure than any human science.

One student wasn't impressed by this argument because it appeared to her that Thomas is begging the question. Thomas hasn't yet demonstrated any reasonable proof that God exists. That comes in Question 2. Does he have a right to appeal to revelation so early in his argument?

Does anybody have a reply to this? I didn't.

P.S. Of all the proofs for God's existence, I like this one, which trades on the distinction between necessary and contingent creatures. Everything that exists in nature, says Thomas, didn't have to exist. We're all contingent creatures. Now, given an infinite amount of time, all possibilities for the coming into existence or not coming into existence of contingent creatures would be exhausted, including the possibility that none of us came into existence. Now if that had ever happened, nothing would exist even to this day because a contingent creature can't create himself. Obviously that didn't happen. So there has to be a necessary being to call the rest of us contingent beings into being. "And by this everyone takes it to mean God."

Itn't that great?

Comments

[Brandon]

This is probably too late to be helpful, but the Summa Theologiae is intended precisely to presuppose revelation. The ST is a text on sacred doctrine, not metaphysics; unlike, say, the Summa Contra Gentiles, it presupposes not only the existence of God but the whole Christian revelation. There are three things that can be called theology and Thomas keeps them very distinct:

(1) metaphysics, insofar as it treats of God;
(2) sacred doctrine, which is the systematic teaching and exposition of the Christian faith;
(3) theology in the strict sense, which is intimate experiential knowledge of God in the contemplative life.

ST is explicitly an introductory textbook for (2). The major issue in Question 2, for instance, is not whether God exists, but how God's existence can be demonstrated (his answer is first that it must be since it is not self-evident, that it can be because you don't need to know the definition of God's nature to do it, and then he shows how). Of course, a demonstration does, by its nature, prove what is demonstrated, but this is incidental to sacred doctrine itself, which already begins with knowledge of God's existence through the light of faith. The reason sacred doctrine is interested in the arguments is that they are 'ways to God', not that it strictly needs them to get off the ground.

[skybison]

I don’t know much about theology… and I’ve never used the word “syllogism” in a sentence before… but as for you favorite proof of God’s existence, I have always liked a similar version of it: it basically flows like this:

1) After the universe cools off a bit and quits swirling very much, the universe’s components are not inherently predisposed to interaction or reaction. Left to its own devices, the physics of the universe will tend towards entropy (leading to a final, non-reactive stability) once the forces of localized gravity have run their natural course.
2) There is no inherent mechanism in the universe toward the development of complex chemistry and chemical interactions (quite the opposite is the way of things), thus no inherent mechanism that would make biological precursors (organic chemistry) arise. The chemical tendencies of universal physics is toward stable, non-reactive stasis. In a word, a cold, still, and eternally boring death is where the universe is going. Only, it’s supposed to be a death without all the drama that we bring to that word, as there is no inherent reason for there to be an opposite to death. A universe devoid of life from start to finish would be THE most natural thing of all. The universe, by nature, is supposed to be uncontaminated by the messy and incongruent presence of life. Sorry folks, that’s physics.
3) And yet… here we are. Despite all the forces of both entropy (at large) and the catastrophic forces of excess instability present in a young to middle aged star system… our planet has remained remarkably stable for nearly 5 billion years. Our planet’s very position in the solar system, its magnetized iron, molten core providing the perfect curtain of electromagnetic protection, its continuously present atmosphere that acts with just enough radiation shielding for 2 or 3 billion years without fail, its perfect “wobble” so it doesn’t get stuck (forever) in a condition of too hot or too cold, its massive amount of H20, not to mention it’s perfectly sized moon that moves the oceans just enough for the key factor of ebb and flow tidal basins… it goes on and on like this. All these factors… and the unnatural formation of complex and inefficient organic molecules leading to unnecessary organic complex’s which somehow magically decide to form into ordered sequences and cellular constructs. All this (as Thomas points out) leading to what he calls “necessary” creatures… which really are not in any way necessary outcomes of physics nor necessary in any way to meet and fulfill universal tendencies. Not to mention the outgrowth of “contingent” creatures like humans who are remarkably inefficient (even by the inefficient standards that are part of “being biologic”) with our nonfunctional actions of both war and love; all of which makes us incalculably unnecessary for the functional aspects of both physics and the universal slide toward cold stillness. Life, especially sentient life with run-away imaginations and slothfulness, makes no sense. So…
4) Something must have brought us about and worked hard to keep us about… for by all rights we should not be here at all. Statistically we are impossibly improbable. Simply put, the very presense of life, human life in particular, is a mathmatical and physical miracle.