32 replies to this topic

[eagle_eye222001]

So I'm in a mini-debate right now on the existence of God....or that God may be argued for from reason, and I invoked Aquinas. When I argued that Aquinas used reason to argue for God, I received a response that said:

"Aquinas does use reason... but fails to make an adequate distintion between rational/empirical and metaphysical/epistemic domains."

Now, I'm not going to respond until tomorrow at the earliest, and at the very least, I am simply going to ask him to further clarify what this sentence means as I am a bit lost.

I have no idea if it's garbage slung out to shut me up, or maybe the battle just got elevated to Tier IV and I'm not qualified yet. Either way, I was wondering if anyone else had any insight to what this sentence means.

I have a book called The Last Superstition by Feser.....haven't read it in a while.....but it looks like my reading schedule has been rearranged from nightly mysteries with Fr. Brown to a crash course in philosophy.

Anyway, I have statistics homework that is more pressing than decrypting philosophy jargon for the moment. I did a quick google search, but I didn't seem to find anything helpful.

If any of you would be kind to point me in the right direction, I would appreciate it.

Thanks and God bless!

[thedude]

That could mean a lot of things - he/she should flesh it out, I can't make sense of it.

[Anomaly]

It's the others opinion is attempting to turn the debate based on empirical observable evidence only. If it can't be measured, it can't exist. That is different than arriving at theoretical conclusions by deduction. For example, not all psychology or sociology is measured empirically, but diagnosis and theories are made based on observation.

[qfnol31]

Try looking in the Summa Contra Gentiles for a better argument. I'm not sure that the "proofs" as found in the Summa Theologiae are proofs so much as definitions.

As for the rational/empirical distinction, this is a later distinction between what we come to know by reason (alone)--rational--and what we come to know by sense experience--empirical. This distinction does in fact exist in Thomas, but the two are not separated one from another as happens with people like Descartes (who actually uses the distinction to destroy the notion of the immaterial soul). The problem now is that people live only by science. I have a really old essay on this if you're interested in reading it. It goes into how we know according to Thomas Aquinas. I could probably send it to you if you'd like, though it's a bit long. Suffice it to say, it's extremely anachronistic to expect Thomas to talk about ration/empirical in the way you expect someone like Kant, Locke, or Descartes to speak about it. I had a professor in undergraduate who argued that much of the distinction between the two was in fact invented by Kant for ulterior motives.

Thomas talks about different ways to know things, one of which is by analogy. Unfortunately, Descartes said that nothing can truly be known via analogy, so even that way of speaking is out of the question for someone wrapped up in modern philosophy.


I have no idea what your interlocutor means by Thomas doesn't distinguish between metaphysic/epistemic domains. This isn't a distinction that's normally recognized in philosophy. Epistemology refers to knowledge and how we know, while metaphysical refers to a part of the cosmos. The real distinction is between metaphysical/physical and/or epistemic/doxa (opinion)? I made that last one up because I can't think of the opposite of epistemic off the top of my head.

Sorry, that's a bit technical. If you want some more on this, please let me know.

[Hubertus]

Sounds like they're just trying to sound smart.. jk.

I'm assuming the debate is going to go into, "Well even if God does exist, that doesn't mean He is omni-___..." if it does, don't forget that Aquinas has something to say about this point, too. (I didn't realize this until recently)

[Papist]

I'd ask him to define those domains. More than likely those are not his own words and really has not put much or any thought into what they mean.

[Slappo]

I'd ask him to define those domains. More than likely those are not his own words and really has not put much or any thought into what they mean.

Or he doesn't even know what they mean...

[Papist]

Or he doesn't even know what they mean...

That is my thought. He is just spitting out stuff he has heard/read. Asking him a few questions will determine that.

[eagle_eye222001]

Try looking in the Summa Contra Gentiles for a better argument. I'm not sure that the "proofs" as found in the Summa Theologiae are proofs so much as definitions.

As for the rational/empirical distinction, this is a later distinction between what we come to know by reason (alone)--rational--and what we come to know by sense experience--empirical. This distinction does in fact exist in Thomas, but the two are not separated one from another as happens with people like Descartes (who actually uses the distinction to destroy the notion of the immaterial soul). The problem now is that people live only by science. I have a really old essay on this if you're interested in reading it. It goes into how we know according to Thomas Aquinas. I could probably send it to you if you'd like, though it's a bit long. Suffice it to say, it's extremely anachronistic to expect Thomas to talk about ration/empirical in the way you expect someone like Kant, Locke, or Descartes to speak about it. I had a professor in undergraduate who argued that much of the distinction between the two was in fact invented by Kant for ulterior motives.

Thomas talks about different ways to know things, one of which is by analogy. Unfortunately, Descartes said that nothing can truly be known via analogy, so even that way of speaking is out of the question for someone wrapped up in modern philosophy.


I have no idea what your interlocutor means by Thomas doesn't distinguish between metaphysic/epistemic domains. This isn't a distinction that's normally recognized in philosophy. Epistemology refers to knowledge and how we know, while metaphysical refers to a part of the cosmos. The real distinction is between metaphysical/physical and/or epistemic/doxa (opinion)? I made that last one up because I can't think of the opposite of epistemic off the top of my head.

Sorry, that's a bit technical. If you want some more on this, please let me know.

Actually I am interested in reading that old essay. If you could send it, I would appreciate it. We just added each other the other day on G+ but I'll PM my email just the same.

Sounds like they're just trying to sound smart.. jk.

I'm assuming the debate is going to go into, "Well even if God does exist, that doesn't mean He is omni-___..." if it does, don't forget that Aquinas has something to say about this point, too. (I didn't realize this until recently)

I think this may be where it's going because part of his last comment that he said that I did not include because it was not directly relevant was along the lines of "why should I care about what your god says about truth?" It's like he is basically asking me why he should care about truth.........now who is being irrational???!!!!

I'd ask him to define those domains. More than likely those are not his own words and really has not put much or any thought into what they mean.

I asked him to further explain what he means by it. We'll see. Given how the conversation was going before, my money is he knows enough to troll religious videos, but we'll see if he really knows stuff or not.

[eagle_eye222001]

So the person I am corresponding with responded and elaborated on what he said earlier.

An example on Aquinas: the cosmological argument applies causality to the metaphysical enterprise of absolute origins without acknowledging that its framework is a limited linguistic/conventional construction.

I'm a bit lost. I feel like he's throwing words together. Either way, I've been kindly given a paper to read, and have just begun to reread "The Last Superstition" which should help my lack of knowledge in philosophy. For the immediate moment though, does this response make any sense?

Thanks again.

[Hubertus]

"Metaphysical enterprise of absolute origins".. Seriously, it sounds like he's showing off or just trying to intimidate you. But I think it boils down to, "The cosmological argument is based on a limited linguistic construction." And this is just a claim; he's not doing very well in persuading his audience, since he doesn't provide the why.

The claim itself though, I don't really understand.. but it seems to echo the general attitude that I've been getting from atheists. They don't seem to really give any credit to philosophy (unless it's by Nietzsche or someone, of course) since it doesn't deal with scientific experiments and empirical evidence, and instead consider it a "linguistic construction," as he put it.

[eagle_eye222001]

I've asked him to further explain it......along with a sentence that seriously satirically assures him I don't think he's trying to intimidate me, but rather I've looked for the phrase and can't find it well defined.

We are going in circles in the other part of the correspondence.....so I'm expected this discussion..........er.........shouting match to end in the near future.

In any respect, I need to my philosophy anyway.

[the171]

Just remember: "To one who has faith, no explaination is necessary. To one without faith, no explaination is possible." -Aquinas

[arfink]

I suspect he's just going to wind up talking past you. He seems to be thoroughly convinced of a modernist view of metaphysics, which is that it's actually complete garbage. After all, he just said that a "metaphysical enterprise of absolute origins... is a limited linguistic/conventional construction."

In other words: metaphysics < real physics, so obviously God can't be real. Trololol.

[eagle_eye222001]

The latest response.

Parse it out. Most theists (as Aquinas did) still posit a god being a matter of absolute. metaphysical truth, something 'real' beyond all limited perception and cognitive frames. Trouble is, to establish/access absolutes/reals/metaphysical-truths USING our limited perception/cognitive systems is inherently flawed; so, Aquinas and others either overlook such problems or wash them away using appeals to authoritative methods that unfortunately lack justification for such epistemic authority.

I suspect he's just going to wind up talking past you. He seems to be thoroughly convinced of a modernist view of metaphysics, which is that it's actually complete garbage. After all, he just said that a "metaphysical enterprise of absolute origins... is a limited linguistic/conventional construction."

In other words: metaphysics < real physics, so obviously God can't be real. Trololol.

So it seems your forecast is correct.

How to proceed from here?

He more or less is saying that Aquinas intermixed two sections of philosophy......and he's claiming you can't do that. So I get to argue you can?

[thedude]

He seems to be saying that the infinite (God) cannot be apprehended by the finite (man). The Christian faith does not propose that God is wholly comprehensible to the human mind, but only asserts that reason can know certain things about the Cause (i.e. His existence) through His effects (i.e. created things). From ST I, q. 12, a. 12:

Our natural knowledge begins from sense. Hence our natural knowledge can go as far as it can be led by sensible things. But our mind cannot be led by sense so far as to see the essence of God; because the sensible effects of God do not equal the power of God as their cause. Hence from the knowledge of sensible things the whole power of God cannot be known; nor therefore can His essence be seen. But because they are His effects and depend on their cause, we can be led from them so far as to know of God "whether He exists," and to know of Him what must necessarily belong to Him, as the first cause of all things, exceeding all things caused by Him.
Hence we know that His relationship with creatures so far as to be the cause of them all; also that creatures differ from Him, inasmuch as He is not in any way part of what is caused by Him; and that creatures are not removed from Him by reason of any defect on His part, but because He superexceeds them all.

[thedude]

Essentially if you believe in a rational universe, you ought to be able to point to its cause in a rational way. If he believes knowledge can be acquired empirically (which it seems he does), I don't think it's consistent to say that Aquinas' "First Cause" is outside the realm of reason. Even Hawking would disagree - his first cause is "gravity" or something; Krauss calls it "nothing." It seems the only way out of proposing a first cause is to embrace some kind of Cartesian skepticism, denying that empirical science can know anything about the universe and nature with certainty. If that's the case, it's a different debate.

Edited by thedude, 13 June 2012 - 08:29 PM.

[Socrates]

I think Aquinas's arguments, while valid, simply go over the head of most modern atheists, who lack the philosophical background to understand them. As God is, by nature, immaterial and outside of the material universe, rather than some physical "thing" in it, doctrinaire materialists will simply deny His existence, as God cannot be directly observed or measured by science but this is simply close-minded materialistic dogmatism, rather than proof of His non-existence.

I actually just got a book, New Proofs for Existence of God: Contributions of Contemporary Physics and Philosophy, by Robert J. Spitzer, SJ, and am currently working my way through it. It's serious intellectual stuff, and not an easy read, at least for a non-astrophysicist like me, but so far it's pretty compelling, though some of the sections regarding physics went over my head. Rather than rehash Aquinas, it offers (as the title indicates) arguments from modern physics and philosophy, which may be more compelling to modern thinkers.

I haven't gotten to the philosophical section yet, but the first part concerns modern astrophysics and theories regarding the origin of our universe. In the first section, Fr. Spitzer basically argues that the current evidence overwhelmingly indicates that the universe (time/space) has a definitive origin, rather than coming out of material that has existed eternally prior to the "big bang." He discusses various "bouncing universe" and "multiverse theories," and points out the considerable problems each of these theories raise. He then discusses the so-called "anthropic principle" and the extreme mathematical unlikelihood that a universe would have the properties necessary to make the development of life possible, and the physical problems with multiverse and superstring theories, which themselves would involve considerable "fine-tuning" of properties in order to work. In short, he shows how it is much more reasonable to conclude that the universe came about from an immaterial, intelligent cause (ie. God), rather than from random material occurrences.

It's heady, involved stuff, and won't make for pithy soundbites in an internet "debate," but I'd recommend it for anyone seriously interested in these issues, particularly those of a serious physics or science geek persuasion. L_D would likely enjoy this book.

Edited by Socrates, 14 June 2012 - 04:22 PM.

[Hubertus]

Another book that I've heard highly recommended and been thinking about getting is Modern Physics and Ancient Faith, by Stephen M Barr: http://www.amazon.co...n/dp/0268034710
From what I can tell, Barr does well to keep it in laymen's terms.

Edited by Hubertus, 14 June 2012 - 05:42 PM.

[Kia ora]

Parse it out. Most theists (as Aquinas did) still posit a god being a matter of absolute. metaphysical truth, something 'real' beyond all limited perception and cognitive frames. Trouble is, to establish/access absolutes/reals/metaphysical-truths USING our limited perception/cognitive systems is inherently flawed; so, Aquinas and others either overlook such problems or wash them away using appeals to authoritative methods that unfortunately lack justification for such epistemic authority.

hm? i can understand what he's saying. he's expressing his skepticism about aquinas' epistemology. he thinks our human capacity to perceive and think about the true nature of reality is flawed. this isn't an isolated criticism. people have been saying this for literally millenia.

Edited by Kia ora, 14 June 2012 - 10:54 PM.