Aquinas Arguments For God Don't Work

[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:


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



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!

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

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]

[quote name='Papist' timestamp='1339505838' post='2443865']
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.
[/quote]

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

[Papist]

[quote name='Slappo' timestamp='1339532624' post='2444025']
Or he doesn't even know what they mean...
[/quote]

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

[eagle_eye222001]

[quote name='qfnol31' timestamp='1339475882' post='2443787']
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.
[/quote]

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.


[quote name='Hubertus' timestamp='1339504697' post='2443861']
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)
[/quote]

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???!!!!

[quote name='Papist' timestamp='1339505838' post='2443865']
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.
[/quote]

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.

[quote]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.[/quote]

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 [i]why. [/i]

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.

[quote][font=arial, sans-serif][size=3][background=rgba(255, 255, 255, 0.917969)]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-[/background][/size][/font][font=arial, sans-serif][size=3][background=rgba(255, 255, 255, 0.917969)]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.[/background][/size][/font][/quote]

[quote name='arfink' timestamp='1339594680' post='2444254']
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.
[/quote]

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?