I avoid debating Thomists, whether Catholic Thomists or Reformed Thomists. In my experience, Thomists are fanatics. It's all about Thomism all the time. That's their filter for everything. They buy expensive technical monographs on Thomistic metaphysics, epistemology, and ethics. They don't invest the same time and money in exegetical theology. In academic Bible commentaries or monographs on the theology of Scripture. Rather, it's commentaries on Aquinas.
They can give you detailed expositions on Thomistic metaphysics, epistemology, and ethics whereas they couldn't begin to provide the same detailed exposition regarding the theology of Isaiah, or Ephesians, or John's Gospel.
They subscribe to the entire package of Thomism. They recast every issue in Thomistic categories. They inhabit a parallel universe. They never surface for air.
I don't subscribe to off-the-shelf philosophical packages. I don't believe any one thinker has all the answers. I'm eclectic. I mix-and-match.
The problem with debating a Thomist is that you have to peel away so many layers. And each time you debate a Thomist, you're pulling another onion from the bag. You must repeat the same process. You must constantly reframe the issue.
It's just like debating the average atheist. So many layers to peel away. And each time you debate another atheist, you have to start peeling away all the same layers. All the unquestioned assumptions.
That's not a productive or constructive use of time. To some degree a Christian apologist or culture warrior has to engage atheism because that's a threat to Christianity. But Thomists are like guys who spend all their free time playing video games. It's their life.
Also, I don't appreciate how Thomists often seem to use philosophical and theological terms in ways unique to Thomism. They seem to take conventional philosophical or theological terms and imbue these terms with their own Thomistic meaning. So it's like trying to learn an abstruse language when talking with Thomists. However, most don't seem to admit that they're the ones who are being unconventional and instead treat you like you're the idiot. In this respect, it's like talking to comic book geeks: "Wut, how could you not know spiders aren't referring to actual spiders but to the synthetic webspinners with adamantium exoskeletons created by the intergalatic planet killer Arachno which was clearly mentioned in issue #93.5.8 of the Amazing Spider-Ham?!"
ReplyDeleteUm, you realize they were using that language first?
DeleteIt's not their fault people later on changed the meaning of terms and forgot what they previously meant.
For example, see John Frame's footnote in his review of James Dolezal's All That Is in God:
DeleteIf you enter Dolezal’s conceptual universe, you must be prepared to navigate some terminology that is fairly abstruse to many modern readers. Often he says that God is “pure actuality” (xiii, 7). The language of Scripture, he says, tells us something true about God, but not “under a form of modality proper to him” (20, cf. 72). Dolezal throws around terms like “ontological,”(26) “real” (25), “essence,” “quiddity,” “substantial form” (41), assuming that the reader is well enough versed in scholastic philosophy to immediately perceive that Dolezal is using these terms in something other than a conventional modern sense. Often he makes no attempt to explain or justify his distinctive scholastic vocabulary.
Dr. Cubed's point still stands. Thomists were using the language first, and it was later changed. So you can't fault Thomists for using their own language because it's what the words meant before it was changed for modern readers.
DeleteSo these terms didn't have a different meaning (say) prior to the Thomists or in non-Thomistic contexts? ;)
DeleteIn my view the basic issue is we need to be specific about our use of terms in any philosophical and theological debate. I grant in some cases it's true non-Thomists should seek to better understand Thomists on their own terms. At the same time, that goes both ways: Thomists should seek to understand non-Thomists on their terms as well. In my experience, I don't see as much going in the latter direction than I do in the former, but of course it depends on the specific debate.
For those who find that the cap fits, and don't want to wear it any longer, but want to use their intellectual talents for something of more eternal value... "At least 1.5 billion people do not have the full Bible available in their first language. " - http://www.wycliffe.net/statistics
ReplyDeleteI wish I had written your comment, Steve. Exactly right.
ReplyDeleteWould this have something to do with a certain person who didn't get that our analogies were undermining his commitment to absolute simplicity? On a related note Thomists don't do too well when they debate Scotists. It seems if you are going for Divine Simplicity the Scotists have a stronger doctrine. The Formal Distinction is helpful as well.
ReplyDeletehttps://triablogue.blogspot.com/2014/10/thomas-aquinas-was-problem-reformation.html
ReplyDeleteFrom our own John Bugay
Thanks Geoff 🙂
DeleteAt the risk of not being debated . . .
ReplyDelete1. I'm pathetic enough to buy expensive Thomist philosophy books, Bible commentaries, and exegetical theologies.
2. If you're convinced Thomist metaphysics is true then it only makes sense to build your other beliefs on that foundation.
3. If, as you say, the Christian apologist must engage atheism then Thomism is one of many ways to do so. As a recent example from my conversations, when the atheist says science relies on methodological/metaphysical naturalism I can reply that methodological/metaphysical Thomism gets the same results with the added benefit of explaining why science is possible at all. Plus, if Thomist natural theology is correct, science and theism are a package deal. This neuters all attempts to argue for atheism on the basis of science.
If more Thomists were like you, I'd have a different assessment.
DeleteIn addition to my response to Wilcox (see below), let's take a concrete example. Here's part of a recent exchange I had with a Thomist:
DeleteAlexander
But it does require a belief that humans are something more than just animals. That something more is what angels are in pure form. Humans are flesh and spirit; animals are pure flesh; angels are pure spirit.
Hays
Actually, I don't object to the idea that some animals (higher animals?) have souls. Some animals are quite intelligent in their own way.
Alexander
Biological intelligence and Spiritual rationality are 2 different animals.
Hays
You're assuming that "biological intelligence" is pure flesh. Other than dogma, do you have an independent reason for your dichotomy?
*************
Now there's more to the exchange that that. But notice how he approaches the issue. He discusses the difference between humans and animals in strictly a priori terms. He puts the issue in a Thomistic straightjacket as if that's the only proper way to frame the issue.
I disagree with that methodology. We should begin by studying animal behavior. Then postulate whatever is required to account for animal behavior. A posteriori, rather than his armchair diktats. I don't object to a priori reasoning, but that's out of place in some contexts. He acts like you don't need to look out the window. You can just intuit reality.
I'm a Thomist, but neither Catholic nor Reformed. Will you debate me? ;)
ReplyDeleteIn seriousness, though, my Thomism grounds most of my conservative views. If I wasn't a Thomist, I probably wouldn't be anti-abortion, anti-same-sex marriage, etc. (unless I was to become a Divine Command Theorist). But Thomism gives me a consistent worldview through which to ground all of my less fundamental views, as well as having the added benefit of best explaining, as Jayman said, why science is possible at all, as well as certain common sense things like why things are the way they are and how we perceive the world. Plus, all of the lame pro-choice arguments are easily answerable from a Thomist framework, and not so easy to answer if you're not a Thomist (though probably still possible).
I've read and appreciate your pro-life or anti-abortion work.
DeleteI don't think I ever knew your pro-life or anti-abortion work was grounded in Thomism. I'd be interested in your anti-abortion work from a Thomistic perspective if you have any specific posts or articles available to share which explicate the Thomistic grounding.
I am familiar with a couple of others like Ed Feser (e.g. "Act and potency". I think certain parts of Christopher Kaczor The Ethics of Abortion (2nd ed.) as well. Not sure if your approach is similar. In any case, again, I'd be interested in your approach.
Deletei) I think you and Jayman are conflating natural theology with Thomism. While Thomism provides one model of natural theology, natural theology is independent of Thomism. A teleological principle doesn't require a Thomistic paradigm. For instance, Plantinga has a detailed model of proper function that's not Thomistic. Likewise, Intelligent design theory is teleological without any commitment to Thomism. Likewise, the work of Del Ratzsch.
Deleteii) I think Biblical authority is sufficient to oppose homosexual marriage.
iii) I've offered philosophical arguments against abortion that don't rely on Thomism.
iv) I don't reject Thomism in toto. Rather, I reject those who think we just either accept or reject Thomism in toto.
I certainly realize there is both Thomistic and non-Thomistic natural theology. My point (3) above merely points out how a Thomist can argue that science and God are a package deal.
DeleteFor the record, it's not like I agree with Thomas Aquinas on everything. I'm rather agnostic about his philosophy of mind (I find the mind too mysterious to strongly endorse any one view of it), which ties in to your comments about the mental abilities of animals to some extent.
But his basic metaphysics (act/potency, four causes, essence/existence, substance/accident) seems impossible to deny without denying the obvious. There is a certain kind of beauty in the way his metaphysics provides the foundation for his natural theology and ethics (among other things). His natural theology goes further than many modern philosophers in being able to argue that the first cause has the attributes of God. His ethics explain why God might forbid certain things (e.g., homosexual practice) that our culture has a hard time understanding (although I'm afraid our culture has a hard time understanding moral realism, period).
As you know, his basic categories are a retooling of Aristotelian categories. Both Aristotle and Aquinas were men of genius, but I think we can improve on the categories.
DeleteBTW, it's a pity that so many of your exchanges on certain blogs are buried in long-forgotten comment-threads. You should post your best exchanges on your own blog for ease of reference.